FI LED U.S. COURT OF AP PEA LS E L E V E N T H CIR C U IT J UL Y 31, 20 08 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1165 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 03- 0066 8- CV -J -3 2 JOHN D. FREEMAN, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, SECRETARY, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 31 , 200 8) Be fo re BL A CK , H U L L and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. BL A CK , Ci rc uit

Jud ge :2

Inhis pe tit ionf

or aw ri t of ha be as c or pus pur suant t o 28 U . S. C. § 22 54, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant J ohn Fr ee m anc ont en ds the S tate of F lor ida , thr oughit s St at e’ s A tto rn ey s, im

pe rm iss ibl y

c hose to pur sue ac ap ita l se nte nc e not be ca use of th e s e v e r i ty o f

h i s c r i me s , b u tb e c au s e h e i s w h i t e an dth e v i c t i ms o f h i s c r i me we re black. Fre em an argues that by doing so the State violated his right s under th e E i g h th an dFo u rt ee n th Am en dm en t s , a n dth atb y fa i l i n g t o o b je ctt o th e S t at e’s actions durin g trial and sentencing, his defense counsel vio lated his rights under th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. Af ter holding an evidentiary hearing on Freem an’ s allegations, the state trial co urt m ad e a fi ndi ng o f fa ct that the S tate ha d no t c onsi de re d F re em an ’ s r ac e or th e rac e o f hi s v ic ti m s wh en itde ci de d t o p ur su e a capi ta l s en te nc e ag ai ns t h im . Re ly ing on tha t f

ind ing , w hic h w as sup por te d by the te sti m ony

of w itn es se s and wa s not un reasonable in light o f the re cord, the f ederal district court denied Fr ee m an ’ s pe tit ion . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing the pe tit ion ; th e r e f o r e , w e a f f i rm. I. BACKGROUND A. The Crim es O n th e m or

nin g of O ct obe r 20, 198 6, Joh n F re em anc lim be d th ro ugh a w ind owint o th e hom e of A lvi n E pps. O nc e ins ide , F re em ansta bbe d E pps to3

de ath and r an sa ck ed

the hou se in a se ar chf

or va lua ble s, ste al ing vari ous ite m s, in cl ud in g acam era, cl ot hi ng , andjewelry. Se e F re em an v . Sta te , 547 S o. 2d 1 25, 12 6- 27 (Fl a. 19 89 ). Freeman was no t i m m ed ia te ly app reh en de d. T w en ty -tw o day s late r, on N ove m be r 11, 198 6, F re em anc om m itt ed a second bu rglary . This tim e, Le onard Collier arr ived hom e to find Free m an st an di ng in si de th e fro ntdo orof h is ho m e. F re em an v . Sta te , 563 S o. 2d 7 3, 75 (Fl a. 19 90 ). In a n a tt em

ptto pre ve ntFree m an fro m esc ap in g, Co ll ie r pu ll eda gu n. F re em an v . Sta te , 761 So. 2d 10 55, 1058 (Fla. 2000). The two m en tussled o ver th e weap on , stum

bl in g i nt o C ol li er’s fro nty ardas t he y di d s o. F

re em an , 563 S o. 2d at 75 . I n th e co ur se of the ir str uggl e, the gundis ch ar ge d, tho ugh it did not hit ei th er m an . Id

. E ve ntu al ly , F re em anw re ste d th e gun fr om Co lli er and h it him ov er t he he adwit h i t ap pr ox im at el y twel ve ti m es as C ol li er t rie d t o c rawl to saf et y . Id . Freem an th en fle d t he sce ne . Id . Me anw hil e, Co lli er ’ s ne ighbor , H ar old H opki ns, ha d he ar d th e guns hot and lo ok edacro ss th e st reetto see a m an rep eat ed ly stri ki ng Co ll ie r on th e h ead . Id . H opki ns t el ep hone d po lic e, w ho arr ive d sh ortly the re af te r an d ob ta ine d st at em en ts fro m bo th Co ll ie r an d Ho pk in s. Id . Police located F reem an a short tim e later , hi di ng un de r a n earb y

bo atdo ck . Id

. H opki ns identi fied Fr eem an, and Freem an4

la te r co nf es se d t o t he bu rg la ry

an d t o h it ti ng Co ll ie r wit h t he gu n. Id . Collier died se ve ral ho ur s l at er fro m

pro fu se bl eed in g fr om

hi s h eadwou nd s. Id

. B . T ria l Proc ee din gs Fr ee m anw as c harg ed

in tw o se parate c as es f

or the de aths o f E pps an d Co lli er . B ef

or e tr ia l w as sc he dul ed

in ei the r ca se , F re em an ’ s law y er c ont ac te d th e prosecutor in charge of the ca se to discuss a plea a greem ent in which Fre em an would plead guil ty

to both m

urder char ges in exchange for two consecutive life sentences with m andatory m inim um 25 y ear term s. T he state attorney ’ s office re j ec te d th e of

fe r an d in sis te d onpr oc ee din g to tr ia l onboth c as es , se ek ing a cap it al sen te nc e in each . Fo llo w ing aj ur

y tr ia l i n th e Co lli er

c as e, F re em anw as c onvi ct ed of f ir st de gr ee f el ony m ur de r. A ft er

he ar ing e vid en ce of

a ggr av at ing and m iti ga tin g fa ct or s, the j ur

y r ec om m en de d ac ap ita l se nte nc e by avot e of nin e to thr ee . T he tr ia l j udge im

pose d ase nte nc e of

de ath. C. D ire ct A ppe al a nd P ost-c onv ic tio n Proc ee din gs A ft er the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt a ff

irm ed his c onvi ct ionon d ir ec t a ppe al , F re em an , 563 So.2d 73, F reem an filed a petition for post-convi ction review under Fla. R. Crim . P . 3. 850. In his petitio n, Fr eem an contended for the first tim e that the State’ s decision to seek the death penalty wa s based upo n im

perm issib le rac ial5

co nsi de ratio ns i n vi olatio n of his r igh ts unde r the E igh th and F ourte en th Am endm ents, and that his trial counsel’s f ailure to objec t to the State’ s alleged co nsi de ratio n of

his r ac e vio late d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o th e ef fe ct ive as si st an ce o f co un se l. ( See Ru le 3. 850 Mot ion , D ist . Ct . D kt. #14 , E xh. 60, a t 13 0- 31; se e als o F

re em an , 761 S o. 2d at 10 60- 61 n . 2 ( lis tin g c la im s r ai se d in Free m an’ s am ended Rule 3.850 m otion ). ) Inhis Ru le 3. 850 m oti on, F re em ana lle ge d: Mr . F re em anof

fe re d to e nte r gui lty

ple as in both [ the E pps an d Collier] cases . . . in exchange f or a life sentence. This offe r w as rej ected by

the State, however, because the State A ttorney ’ s Of fice w an te d to “ ge t the num

be rs up” on s ee kin g th e de ath pe na lty in hom ic ide s invol vin g whit e de fe ndants and b la ck vic tim s. (R ule 3. 850 Mot ion , D ist . Ct . D kt. #14 , E xh. 60, a t 12 9; se e als o F re em an , 761 So . 2d at 10 68. ) T he tr ia l c ourt de nie d F re em an ’ s m oti on i n it s e nti re ty w ith out co nduc ti ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on an y of F reem an ’s cla im s. ( Se e F re em an , 76 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 06 0.) O nap p e a l f

r o m th e d e n i a l o f

th e R u l e 3 . 8 5 0 mo t i o n , th e F l o r i d aS up r e me Co urt he ld the tr ia l c ourt ha d e rr ed by de ny ing F re em an ’ s m oti on w ith out apr ior ev id en ti ary he ari ng . (

Id . a t 10 68. ) N oti ng i t w oul d vi olate the e qua l pr ote ct ion cl au se to co nsi de r ra ce a s af ac tor in se ek ing the de ath pe na lty ( an d im pli ci tly sugg es tin g it

w oul d th er ef

or e be de fi ci en t f

or c ouns el not

to obj ec t t o su cha6

consideration), the court rem anded the case for further f actual developm ent at an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . (

Id . ) 1. E vi de nti aryhe ari ng O n Ju ly 16- 17, 200 1, the state tr ia l c ourt he ld a he ar ing on F re em an ’ s R

ule 3. 850 m oti on, dur ing w hic h it he ar d te sti m ony

f ro m P atri ck Mc G uin es s and Ann Fi nne ll (F re em an ’ s tr ia l l awy er s) , Joh n B ra df or d S te tso n ( the le ad

pr ose cutor

on the Co lli er

and E pps ca se s) , and E d Aust in ( the f orm er S tate A tto rn ey

w ho supe rv ise d F re em an ’ s c as es ), am ong oth er s.

a. Protoc ol f

or C api tal Pros ec uti ons The te stim ony

revea led that the State A ttorney ’ s Of fice had an establish ed protocol for determ ining when to pursue the death penalty in m urder ca ses. W

hen a le ad pr ose cutor

ide nti fi ed

apot en tia l c ap ita l c as e, the pr ose cutor w oul d pr es en t the c as e to a

“ H om ic ide Co m

m itt ee , ” co m

pr ise d of apane l of

pr ose cutin g st at e attor ne y s. ( 7/1 6/0 1 H r’ g T rans. a t 43 :12 -1 8. ) T he se a tto rn ey s w oul d r ev ie wthe ca se and, w he n a

ppr opr iate , r ec om

m en d th at ac ap ita l se nte nc e be pur sue d. A ny tim e the c om

m itt ee r ec om

m en de d ac as e fo r ca

pit al pr ose cutio n, it

w as r equir ed

to ob ta in Aus ti n’s p ers on al ap pr ov al be fo re m ov in g fo rwardwit h t he pro se cu ti on . St et son te sti fi ed

that he br ough t F re em an ’ s c as e to the a tte nti on o f the H om ic ide Co m

m itt ee be ca

use F re em anha d c om

m itt ed tw o se parate m

ur de rs ,McGuiness re counted that, at the time of the plea neg otiations, the Supreme Court was 1 co n s i d er i n g McClesk

ey v . Kemp , 481 U.S. 279, 107 S. C t. 1756 (1987), a c ase in whic h a blac k defe ndant was c halleng ing the constitutionalit y of the de ath pena lty

on the g round that statistical studies showed blac ks who killed white victims were disproportionately more likely

to be sentenc ed to death than whites who killed black vic tims. See id. at 282-87, 107 S. Ct. at 1762- 64. 7 ki ll in g b ot h i nd iv idua ls in th ei r ho m es . ( Id. at 19:19 -24.) The Com m ittee voted unanim ouslyto recom

m end a capital sentence ( id. at 24: 22- 25: 15) , and Aust in ap pr ove d th e de ci sio n ( id. at 25:15-18 ).

b. P lea offer A cc or din g to the te sti m ony of F re em an ’ s le ad

c ouns el , P atri ck

Mc G uin es s, som et im e be fo re F re em anw as tr ie d ine ith er the E pps or

Co lli er c as es , Mc G uin es s ap pr oa ch ed

S te tso n a bout the pos sib ili ty

of aple a de al , in w hic h F re em anw oul d pl eadgu il ty to b ot h m

ur de rs in ex ch an ge forco ns ecu ti ve no n- cap it al sen te nc es . McG uiness recalled that Stetson rej ected the offe r because the State needed to get

“ ge t t he ir n um

be rs up on whi te s k il li ng bl ack s.” ( Id. at 90: 11- 91: 6. ) Mc G uin es s 1 too k no a ct ionr eg ar din g th e co nve rs at ionbe ca use he “ ha d ne ve r en co unt er ed it before and . . . didn ’ t really know what vehicle [ he] could use to add ress it.” ( Id . at91 :1 3- 15 .) St et son did

not de ny r ej ec tin g F re em an ’ s pl ea of fe r, but r em em be re d th e sit ua tio n di ff

er en tly . S te tso n te sti fi ed

w he n M cGuin es s pr opos ed aple a de al , he rej ected it on the groundthat the aggravating factors in Free m an’ s case w arranted8

a ca pit al se nte nc e. A ddi tio na lly , una ble to “ re sis t the opp ortun ity to thr owali ttl e bit m or e in the re , ” he r ep lie d, “N ot o nly is the answ er

no, but if I w er e to a gr ee to thi s . . . [ y ] ou w oul d us e that de ci sio n a ga ins t the S tate in ev er y oth er de ath pe na lty c as e w he re the de fe ndant w as bla ck , usi ng this a s an e xam ple of the c as e w he re w e shou ld h av e soug ht the de ath pe na lty but didn’ t be ca

use the de fe ndant wa s white and killed two Af rican A m ericans.” (

Id . a t 17 :22 -2 4; 1 8:9 -1 0, 25; 19: 1- 5.) Whe n a ske d whe the r ra ce e ve r fa ct or ed int o hi s de ci sio n to se ek

the de ath penalty in any given case, Stetson testified he never pursued a capital sentence be ca use of r ac e. H e w as c onsc iou s of pub lic pe rc ep tio ns o f his of fi ce and m ad e choices “ in a fair and neutral m anner, ” w ithou t givin g prefer ence to individual de fen da nt s b as edup on raci al co ns id erat io ns . ( See id. a t 38 :25 -3 9:1 . ) Aust in co rr obor at ed

S te tso n’ s te sti m ony , statin g th at r ac e ha d “ nothin g to do w iththe decision to file and prosecute . . . a hom icide as a f

irst degree m

urder ca se.” (

Id . at 47: 24- 48: 1. ) T hat de ci sio n, he te sti fi ed , w as m ad e “ on the ba sis of the law , and

. . . on the basis of the fac ts . . . .” ( Id. at48 :1 -2 .) 2. P ost-c onv ic tio n orde r an d ap pe al Following the evident iary hearing, the tr ial j udge iss ued an order in which he f ound :9

T he te sti m ony

of [ the w itn es se s] e sta

bli she d th at

a s ar es ult

of the str en gthof

the S tate ’ s c as e as to the Co lli er m ur de r, and the likeliho od of a death sentence in that case, [D efendant’ s lead trial co unse l] Mc G uin es s w en t t o [ A ssi stant S tate A tto rn ey ] S te tso n and pr opos ed aple a ag re em en t a s to both m ur de r ca se s, w he re by

the de fe ndant w oul d pl ea d gu ilty to both m

ur de rs and b e se nte nc ed

to co ns ecu ti ve li fe s en te nc es wit h 2 5 year m in im um m an da to ry

term s. T he te sti m ony

e sta bli she d an aw ar en es s by

c ouns el f or the part ie s of the the n pe ndi ng F ed er al li tig at ionin w hic h st udi es w er e use d to supp ort an a lle ga tio n th at pr ose cutor s w er e se ek ing the de ath pe na lty dis pr opor tio na lly a ga ins t bl ac k de fe ndants . [ D ef en se c ouns el ] Ms . Fi nne ll an d M r. Mc G uin es s te sti fi ed that M r. S te tso n r es pond ed to the defendant’ s plea offer

by stating th at if he a ccepted the offe r, counsel fo r the de fe nse w oul d us e that f ac t t o su ppor t f uture a lle ga tio ns o f discrim inatory

application of the death penaltyagainst black de fen da nt s. Even assum ing th at Mr. Stetson respondedto the defendant’ s plea of fe r as Mr . Mc G uin es s in dic at ed , thi s C ourt f ind s th at the r es pons e wa s noth ing m ore than a som ew hat ill-consid ered r etort to then ex ist ing a lle ga tio ns o f ra ci al dis cr im inatio n inthe appl ic at ionof the de ath pe na lty

by pr ose cutor s ( of

an op posi te natur e to the ins tant fa ct s) , and tha t the e vid en ce not onl y f ai le d to de m onstrate ar ac ia lly m oti va te d purp ose in pur sui ng the de ath pe na lty in thi s c as e, but rathe r, it de m onstrate d th at

the S tate A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e did not pur sue the de ath pe na lty

in thi s c as e ba se d onthe r ac e of thi s de fe ndant ( w ho is white). Sta te v . F re em an , N o. 86- 1159 9- CF , a t 2- 3 ( Fl a. 4thCi r. Ct . Jul . 24, 200 1) (located in rec ord at Dist. Ct. Dkt. #14, Ex. #78). T he court again denied Fr ee m an ’ s m oti on f

or pos t- co nvi ct ionr el ie f, f

ind ing that be ca

use the S tate ha d no tFor rea sons that are not clear , the trial cour t refe rre d to Fre eman’ s rac e-ba sed 2 alleg ations as a sing le claim ar ising unde r the Due Process Clause. ( See F reem an , No. 86 -1 15 99 -C F , at 1- 2 ( “ Th e de fe nd ant r a ise d th e du e pr oc e ss a lle g atio n th at th e State imp ro pe rl y used ra ce a s a motivating f actor in decidingto pursue a de ath sentenc e in this case.” )).

10 based its decisio n to seek a capital sentence on Fre em an’ s race , F reem an’ s race ba se d c la im s ne ce ssari ly

f ai le d. 2 On appeal f

rom the denial of his pos t-conviction m otion , F reem an co nti nue d to arg ue the S tate ’ s a lle ge d c onsi de ratio n of his r ac e ha d vi olate d hi s rig ht s u nd er t he Six th , Eig ht h, an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts . ( See Ap p el l an t ’s B r i e f t o F l a . S up . C t . , D i s t . C t . D kt . # 1 4 , E x h . 8 4 , a t 5 1 - 6 2 . ) T h e F l o r i d aS up r e me Co urt a ff irm ed the de nia l of

F re em an ’ s R

ule 3. 850 m oti on a ft er

c onc lud ing the evidence suppo rted the trial court’ s finding that the State had not consid ered Free m an ’s race wh en de ci di ng to pu rs ue a cap it al sen te nc e. F re em an v . Sta te , 858 So. 2d 319, 324 (Fla. 2003 ). D . F ed eral H abe as P et iti on O n D ec em

be r 29, 200 4, F re em anf

ile d ape tit ionf

or aw ri t of ha be as c or pus in the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida , c ont en din g h i s Si x th , Ei g h th , a n dFo u rt ee n th Am en dm en tri g h t s we re v i o l at edb y th e S t at e’s al le ge d c onsi de ratio n of

his r ac e. I n r es pons e, the S tate arg ue d ( as it ha d to the Fl or ida S upr em e Co urt) that F re em anha d pr oc ed ur al ly de fa ult ed his E igh th and11

Fo urte en th Am en dm en t c la im s by f ai lin g to r ai se the m

on d ir ec t a

ppe al . T he district court obs erved that although Fre em an’ s race -based claim s had been described by

the state courts as ane qua l pr ote ct ionc la im , adue pr oc es s c la im , an E igh th A m en dm en t claim and a Sixth Am endm ent claim , it has ultim ately been addressed as a c l ai m al l eg i n g th at“ ra ce wa s th e mot i v e b eh i n dth e p ro s ec u t o r’s decision to seek the death penalty in this case.” F

re em an , 858 S o. 2d at 322. A s an extension of this claim , P etitioner has asserted that co unse l w as ine ff

ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o c ha lle nge thi s m atte r at tr ia l, re sul tin g inan e qua l pr ote ct ionvio latio n, adue pr oc es s vi olatio n and anE igh th Am en dm en t vi olatio n. (F re em an v . M

cD onough , N o. 3:03-CV- 668-J-32 , at 34-35 (M.D . F la. 2006 ). ) Co nc lud ing the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt ha d im

pli ci tly a ddr es se d th e m er its of

a ll three of F reem an’ s race -based claim s, the district court did the sam e and denied the pe tit ion , c onc lud ing the state c ourt’ s f ind ing that F re em an ’ s se nte nc e w as not ba se d o n ra ce was fat al to each of F reem an ’s cla im s. ( Id. at 37-38.) The district court later

granted a ce rtificate of appealability on “ Gr oundII” of the petition, which consisted of Freem an’ s claim that the State’ s alleged co nsi de ratio n of

his r ac e vio late d hi s r igh ts unde r the S ixth, E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en ts. ( D ist . Co urt O rd er date d Ju l. 9, 200 7, dkt . # at 1- 2; se e als o D ist . Co ur t Ord er d at edOct. 2 3, 2 00 6, at2 (s umm ari zi ng Free m an ’s hab eas cla im s) .)12 II. DISCUSS ION Inhis ha be as pe tit ion , F re em ana lle ge s th e St at e of F lor ida im pe rm iss ibl y c o n s i d e r e dr a c e w h e nd e c i d i n g t o p u r s u e ac ap i t a l s e n t e n c e a g a i n s th i m. Free m an co nte nds the S tate ’ s a lle ge d m isc ondu ct in thi s r eg ar d vi olate d hi s F ourte en th Am endm ent right to equal p rotection and his Eighth Am endm ent right to be free o f a rb i tra ry an dcap ri ci o u s p u n i s h m en t . In ad d i t i o n , h e c o n t en d s h i s l aw yer’s fa ilure to obj ec t t o th e St at e’ s c onsi de ratio n of r ac e vio late d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t rig htto effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. A . Clai m s N

owB ef oreU s Be fo re tur

nin g to the sub stanc e of

F re em an ’ s c la im s, w e m ust de te rm ine w hic h of tho se c la im s are pr ope rl y be fo re thi s c ourt. Whe n astate pr iso ne r fa ils to ex haust his f ed er al c la im s instate c ourt purs uant t o in de pe nde nt and a de quate state procedural rules befor e bringing h is habeas petition , “ federa l habeas review of the c la im s is barr ed

unl es s th e pr iso ne r can de m onstrate c au se f or the de fa ult an d a ct ua l pr ej udi ce a s ar es ult

of the a lle ge d vi olatio n of

f ed er al law , or dem onstrate that failure to consider the claim s will re sult in a fundam ental m iscarria ge of j ustice.” Co le m an v . T hom pson , 501 U . S. 722 , 750 , 111 S . Ct . 2546 , 256 5 ( 1991 ). A s it did in both th e state and d istri ct c our ts, the S tate ur ge s us13

to c onc lud e Fr ee m anpr oc ed ur al ly de fa ult ed his E igh th and F ourte en th Am en dm en t cl ai m s b y

fai li ng to rai se th em

on di rectap pe al . Fr ee m anf

ir st r ai se d hi s r ac e- ba se d E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en t cl ai m s i n h is m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f pu rs ua ntto Fla . R. Cri m . P. 3.8 50 . U nde r Fl or ida

law , pr oc ee din gs unde r Ru le 3. 850 m ay not be use d a s ase co nd ap pe al , and i ssu es that “ co uld have be en , sho uld

have be en , or

w er e ra ise d on direct appeal” m ay

not be raised in a later post-conviction m otion , a bsent sp ecial ci rcu m st an ces no t p res en t i n t hi s ca se . Se e M edina v . Sta te , 573 S o. 2d 2 93, 295 (F la . 199 0) . B y

not r ai sin g hi s E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en t c la im s on dir ec t a ppe al , F re em anpr oc ed

ur al ly de fa ult ed tho se c la im s un de r state lawand w oul d or din ar ily

be barr ed

f ro m se ek ing f ed er al ha be as r ev ie ww ithr es pe ct

to th os e cl ai m s. Ther e ar e severa l exceptions, however, to the general rule of pr ocedural de fa ult . Whe n astate c ourt i gnor es apr oc ed ur al de fa ult and c hoos es to ad dr es s the m er its of

ade fe ndant’ s de fa

ult ed c la im s, f or e xam ple , f ed er al c ourts c annot ap pl y th e p ro cedur al ba r on th e st at e’s be ha lf. Se e P eo ples v . Ca m

pbe ll , 377 F . 3d 1208 , 1235 (11th Cir. 2004) (feder al district court err ed in invo king procedural de fa ult that st at e co urt of

c ri m ina l a

ppe al s ha d de cl ine d to f

oll ow ); Davis v. Sin gle tar y , 119 F . 3d 1 471, 147 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ( “ It is se ttl ed that on ce the state14

co urts h av e ign or ed

any pr oc ed ur al bar an d r ej ec te d ac la im on the m er its —no t i n the a lte rn at ive but

a s th e onl y

ba sis of de ci sio n—tha t c la im

is not barr ed f ro m fed eral habe as rev ie w.”). Th e F l o ri d a S up re m e C o u rt ’s o p i n i o naf fi rmin g th e d en i al o f F re eman ’s m oti on f or pos t- co nvi ct ionr el ie f is l es s th anc le ar w ithr es pe ct

to its tr eatm en t of Free m an’ s Eighth and Fourteenth Am endm ent claim s. T he court analy zed Free m an’ s race -based allegations as a claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel an d e nga ge d inatr ad iti ona l Str ic kland an al y si s. Se e Str ic kland v. W ashi ngton , 466 U.S . 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). A t the sam e tim e, the court never re j ected Free m an’ s Eighth or Fourteenth Am endm ent claim s as procedurally barre d and, as the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d, the F lor ida S upr em e Co urt sum

m ar iz ed F re em an ’ s c la im in a w ay that su gge ste d it

und er sto od h e w as r ai sin g bo th s ubst an tiv e E igh th and Fo urte en th Am en dm en t c la im s ( i.e. “ a re verse McC leskeyclaim ,” F

re em an , 858 So . 2d at 32 3) and a

se parate ine ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m . B ec au se the F lor ida Su pr em e Co urt’ s r

uli ng c anbe r ea d to r ea chthe m er its of F re em an ’ s E igh th and Fo urte en th Am en dm en t c la im s, and b ec au se ( as w e dis cu ss b el ow ) the state co urt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t de fi nit ive ly

r es olv e al l thr ee of

F re em an ’ s c la im s onthe sam e gr ound , w e co nsi de r the m er its of F re em an ’ s S ixth, E igh th, and F ourte en th Am en dm en t ra ce-b as edcla im s.15

B . M er its of F re em an’ s H abe as C lai m s O ur r ev ie wof

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of F re em an ’ s ha

be as pe tit ionis governed bythe Antiterr orism and Ef fective D eath Penalty

Ac t of 1996 (AE DP A) , Pub. L . N o. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (199 6). Under A ED PA , a feder al court m ay onl y gr an t ha be as r el ie f to a

state pe tit ion er

if the state c ourt’ s de ci sio n onthe m er its of the pe tit ion er ’ s c la im s ( 1) r es ult ed in a de ci sio n th at

w as c ontrary

to, or invo lved an unreasonable appli cation of, c learly established Federal law , a s de te rm ine d by

the S upr em e Co urt of

the U nit ed

S tate s; o r (2 ) re sul te d inade ci sio n that w as ba se d onan unre as ona ble de te rm inatio n of

the f ac ts i n li ght

of the evidence presented in the State court proce eding. 28 U. S. C. § 225 4(d). Feder al habe as c ourts p re sum e the state c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s are c or

re ct , unl es s th e pe tit ion er r eb uts the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f tho se f

ind ing s by

c le ar and c onvi nc ing ev id en ce. Id

. § 2254 (e)( 1). A ft er c ondu ct ing atw o- day

e vid en tiary

he ar ing on the a lle ga tio ns m ad e in Free m an’ s state post-conv iction m otion , the state court m ade severa l key fac tual fi ndi ngs: 1. B ef or e Fr ee m anw as tr ie d ine ith er the E pps or

Co lli er m ur de rs , Free m an’ s defense counsel approached Stetson, the lead prosecutor, and propos ed a p le a ag reem en t.16

2 . A tth e t i me o f

th e p l e ad i s c u s s i o n , th e p art i e s w e r e aw ar e th e S up r e me Co urt w as de ci din g McC leskey, a ca se involv ing allegation s that prosecutors were se ek in g t he de at h p en al ty dis pr op or ti on at el y ag ai ns t b la ckde fen da nt s. See 481 U.S. at 2 82 -8 7, 1 07 S. Ct. at17 62 -6 4. 3. A ssum ing S te tso n m ad e the c om m en ts d ef en se c ouns el a ttr ibu te d to him (tha t, if the ple a of

fe r w as a cc ep te d, c ouns el f or the de fe nse w oul d us e that f ac t t o supp ort f uture a lle ga tio ns o f dis cr im inator y appl ic at ionof

the de ath pe na lty against black defendants), Stetson’ s response was an “ ill-consid ered r etort to then ex ist ing a lle ga tio ns o f ra ci al dis cr im inatio n inthe appl ic at ionof the de ath pe na lty b y p r o s e c u t o r s ( o f

ano p p o s i t e n a tu r e t o th e i n s t an tf a c t s ) , ” r a th e r

th anp r o o f

o f “a racia lly m otivated pu rpose in pursu ing th e death penalty in this case.” F

re em an , No. 8 6- 11 59 9- CF, at2-3 (lo cat edin th e rec or d a t Di st . Ct. Dk t. # 14 , Ex. #7 8) . 4. “ [T ] he S tate ’ s A tto rn ey ’ s O ff ic e did not pur sue the de ath pe na lty in [Fr eem an’ s] case based on the rac e of th[e] defendant. . . .” Id . at 3 . W iththe se f

ac ts i n m ind , w e tur

n to F re em an ’ s c onst itutio na l c la im s. Alt ho ug h p ro se cu to rs are v es te d wi th wid e-ra ng in g d is cret io n, see B all v. U nited States , 470 U . S. 856 , 859 , 105 S . Ct . 166 8, 167 0 ( 1985 ), pr ose cutor ia l de ci sio ns rem ain subject to “ ordinary equal protection stand ards.” W ayte v. United States , 47 0 U.S. 5 98 , 60 8, 1 05 S. Ct. 1 52 4, 1 53 1 (1 98 5) .17

[A]lth ou gh pro se cu to ria l d is cret io n i s b ro ad , itis no t u nf et te red . Se le ct ivi ty

in the e nf

or ce m en t of

c ri m ina l l aw s is sub

j ec t t o constitu tional cons traints. I n particular, the decision to p rosecute m ay not be delib erate ly

based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race , re lig ion , or

oth er arb itr ar y c la ssi fi catio n. Id . ( quot at ion s, c itatio ns, and e lli psi s om itt ed ). A t the ti m e the S tate de ci de d to pursue a capital sentence in Fr eem an’ s case, the lawof the Suprem e Court w as cl ear: r eg ar dle ss the c olo r of F re em an ’ s sk in, r ac e co uld play no r ole in the de ci si on to see k acap it al sen te nc e ag ai ns t h im . In order to prove his Fourteenth Am endm ent equal protection right s wer e vio late d by

the S tate ’ s de ci sio n to se ek the de ath pe na lty , F re em anw as r equir ed to pr ove the de ci sio nm ak er s inhis c as e “ ac te d w ithdis cr im inator y pur pose ” in se le ct in g h is sen te nc e. Mc Cleskey , 48 1 U.S. at29 2, 1 07 S. Ct. at17 67 . As we have j ust r ec ount ed , how ev er , the state c our t m ad e a fi ndi ng o f fa ct

that the p ro s ec u t o rs p u rs u eda c ap i t al s en t en ce b ec au s e o f t h e s er i o u s n es s o f F re eman ’s cri m es —n otbe cau se of h is race . Fr ee m an ’ s E igh th Am en dm en t c la im f ac es asim ilar obst ac le . Astate m ust ensure that the discretion of its pros ecutors is “ suitablydirected and lim ited so as to m inim ize the risk of whollyarbitrar y and capricious action.” Id . at 302, 107 S. Ct . a t 17 72 ( quot ing G re

gg v . G eo rgi a , 428 U . S. 153 , 189 , 96 S . Ct . 290 9, 293 2 (1976)). I f the State of Florida (a cting throu gh the State A ttorney ’ s Of fice) failed18

to “ es ta bli sh r at ion al c ri te ri a [n ar ro w ing ] the de ci sio nm ak er ’ s j udgm en t a s to w he the r the c ir cum stanc es of apart ic ular de fe ndant’ s c as e m ee t the thr es hol d” f or a ca pit al se nte nc e, it

w oul d vi olate the E igh th A m en dm en t. Id. at 305 , 107 S . Ct . at 1774. How ever, Fre em an does notchallenge the we ll-organized, m ulti-tiered pr oc es s e m

plo y ed by the F lor ida

S tate A tto rn ey ’ s O ff

ic e in d et er

m ini ng whe the r to pursue a capital sentence in any given m urder ca se. Instead, F reem an argues

“ [b] ased on the facts presented at the e videnti ary hearing below, it is apparent that

. . . [t] he State’ s selection of Mr. Fre em an as a c andidate for the death penalty wa s ba se d up on arb itr ar

y f ac tor s unre late d to the c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse or the charac ter of the def

endant.” P etitioner-Appellant’ s Brief , at 16-17. T he problem w iththat arg um en t, of

c our se , is that i t i s c om

ple te ly und er m ine d by the state court’ s adverse fa ctual finding. By specifically

finding th e State Attorney ’ s Of fice did not pur sue the de ath pe na lty in Fr ee m an ’ s c as e ba se d onhis r ac e, the state court elim inated the factual basis for Fr eem an’ s contentio n that his s entence w as arb it rary andcap ric io us in vi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Fr ee m an ’ s S ixth A m en dm en t c la im r es ts o n hi s E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en t c la im s, and s uf fe rs f ro m the sam e de fe ct . T o pr ev ai l onac la im of i n ef fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce , ap et i t i o n erm u s tes t ab l i s h two th i n g s : h i s tri al co u n s el ’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie ntan d t he de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce p reju di cedth e p et it io ne r.19

See G ordo n v. United States , 518 F . 3d 1 291, 129 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 8) ( ci tin g Str ic kland , 466 U . S. a t 68 7- 88, 104 S . Ct . a t 20 64. F re em ana sse rt s hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o c ouns el w as vio late d whe n hi s tr ia l l awy er f ai le d to obj ec t t o the S tate ’ s a lle ge d c onsi de ratio n of r ac e dur ing it s de ci sio nm ak ing pr oc es s. T he f ir st s te p inthe ine ff

ec tiv en es s ana ly sis is to d et er m ine w he the r de fe nse co unse l’ s pe rf

orm an ce w as de fi ci en t; that i s, w he the r co unse l w as unr ea sona ble unde r pr ev ai lin g pr of

es sio na l no rm s f

or f ai lin g to br ing an E igh th o r Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to Free m an ’s cap it al sen te nc e. See Stewart v. Sec’y, De p’t of C orr . , 476 F . 3d 1 193, 120 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) . Alaw y er c annot be de fi ci en t f

or f a i l i n g t o r a i s e ame r i t l e s s c l a i m, se e Ch andler v . M oore , 240 F . 3d 9 07, 917 ( 11th Ci r. 200 1) ; the re fo re , it

f oll ow s th at

de fe nse c ouns el ’ s f

ai lur e to r ai se E igh th o r Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ob j ec tio ns t o F re em an ’ s se nte nc e co uld be de fi ci en t on ly if t he re were reas on forob jecti ng to th e St at e’s ex erci se of i ts ch arg in g d is cret io n. As w e have alr eady

established, however, the state court found the prosecutors had not im properly exerc ised their charging discretion b ecause they did no t consider race as a f

actor in deciding to p ursue a capital sentence. Consequently , ther e w as no m isc ondu ct

to w hic h F re em an ’ s c ouns el c oul d r ea sona bly obj ec t. Af ter a full evidentiary

hearing, the state trial court re j ected the fa ctual predicate underly ing each of Fre em an’ s claim s by finding s tate prosecutors had20

not based th eir decision to seek a capital sentence on Fr eem an’ s race . Free m an ha s no t de m onstrate d by

c le ar and c onvi nc ing e vid en ce that the f ind ing s of

the state c ourt w er e unr ea sona ble in lig ht o f the e vid en ce pr es en te d duri ng the pos tco nv ic ti on ev id en ti ary he ari ng , see 28 U . S. C. § 22 54( d) (2 )- (e )( 1) , and those fi n d i n g s (w h i ch ar e e n t i t l edt o a p re s u m p t i o no f c o rr ec tn es s ) a re fa t al t o Fr ee m an ’s co nst itutio na l c la im s. B ec au se F re em anha s f ai le d to sho whe is in c ust ody in violatio n of the Constitu tion o r law s of the United State s, the district court properly denied Free m an’ s petition for habeas r elief. AFFIRMED.