Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70011
ROBERT S I M ON, J R P eti ti on er-A p p ell a n t v. CHR I S T OP HER B E P P S , C OMM I S S I ONE R, MI S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M ENT O F CO RR EC TI O N S R espon den t
- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

U SD C N o. 2: 04- c v- 26

B ef ore JO L LY , D E N N IS, an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * R obertSim on , Jr. w as convi ct ed an d sen t en ced t o death f or th e m u rders of C arlan d B obbie Joe P arker an d th ei r son G regory P arker. T h e di st ri ctcourt den i ed S i m on ’ s f

ederalha beas peti t i on , an d h e no w s eeks a C ert i f i cat e of A pp eal abili t y ( “ C O A” ) on severali n ef fect ive- assi st an ce- of

- coun selcl ai m s. S p ecif i ca l l y, Sim on cl a i m s th a t his cou n sel w a s i n effective in (1) fa ilin g to i n vest i gate hi s hi st ory of fam i l i ala bu se an d p resent t h at hi st ory as m i t i gati on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 70011

2 evi den ce atsentenci n g, ( 2) f ai l i n g t o of

fer w i t n esses t o cor roborat e hi s c on t en t i on t h at hi s co n fessi on w as ph ysi cal l y coerc ed, ( 3) fai l i n g t o use extr a f or- cau se ch a l l en ge s at j u ryselecti on , an d( 4 ) fai l i n g t o reh a b i l i tate juro rs w h o refu sed to i m pos e the dea t h penalt y. W e g r anta C O A o n Si m o n’ s f i r s tc l ai m . The Supr e m e Cour to f M i s s i s s i ppi h eldt h a t S i m on ’ s tri a lcou n sel w a s n ot i n effective for fa i l i n g to inv estiga te S i m on ’ s hi st ory of

fam i l i alabu se becau se t h ere w as no evidence t h at c ou n sel k n ew or sh ou l dh a ve k n ow n tha t su ch ab u se too k p l a ce. A ccord i n g t o th a t cou rt,
c o u n s e l c o u ldn o tb e in e ffe c t iv e a b s e n ts o m e r e a s o n to in v e s t ig a t e S im o n ’s h i s t o r yo f

a b u s e . A s d e t a i l e db e l o w , we f i n di td e b a t a b l e w h e t h e rt h e S u p r e me C ou rtof

M i ssi ssi pp i ’ s deci si on w as an obj ect ively r eason able ap pl i cat i on of S t ri cklan dv. W

ash i ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8 (19 8 4 ). A s t o Sim on ’ s r e m a in in gcl ai m s, w e den y a C O Abecau se t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t’s re s o lu tio n o f th e s e cla im s is n o t d e b a ta b le a m o n gju r is ts o f r e a s o n . W e t h e r e f o r e g r a n ti n p a r ta n dd e n yi n p a r tS i m o n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o raCOA. I . B A CK GRO UND T h e p a r tie s a r e fa m ilia rw ith th e b a c k g r o u n do f th is ca s e , a n dw e w ill o n ly br i ef l y r evi ew t he r el evantfac t s. Carland B obbi e J oe Parkerl ived i n Q ui t m an Co u n t y , Mi s s i s s i p p iwit h t h e i rc h i l d r e n , C h a r l o t t e a n dG r e g o r yP a r k e r . O n F ebru ary 2, 199 0, a passi n g m ot ori stsaw t h at th e P a rk e rs ’hou se w as on f i re. Af t e rt he f i r e w as ex t i ngu i s he d, t he bo di e s of al lf o urfam i l y m e m be r s w e r e f o und i n si de the h om e. C arl , B obbie Joe, an d G regory h ad al l di ed of gu n shot w ou n ds. Char l o t t e , t ho ughs ho tt h ree t i m e s , di e d o f s m o ke i nhal at i o n. Si m o n a nd
an ot h er m an , A n t h on y C arr, w ere soon a rres t ed an d cha rged w i t h the P arkers’
m u rder. In J u n e 1 9 9 0 , th e S ta te tr ie dS im o n fo rth e ca p ita l m u r d e ro f o n ly Char l o t t e Par ke r , a c as e t hat w e r e fe r t o as Si m o n I
. Th e j u ry f ou n d S i m onN o. 08- 70011

3 gu i l t y bu tcoul d n otreach a u n an i m ou s d eci si on on h i s sen t en ce. T h e t ri alcourt t h eref ore sentenced Si m on t o l i fe i m pri sonm en t f or C h arl ot t e P arker’ s m u rder. A f t er Si m o n I, t he St at e tri ed C ar rf o rt he c ap i t alm ur de ro f a l lf o ur P arkers. Aj u ry convi ct ed C arr on a llfo u r co u n t s and ret u rneda sentence of d ea thon ea ch cou n t. Fi nall y c am e Si m o n’ s seco nd t r i al , t he o ne f r o m w hi c h t he pr e s e nt pro c ee di ngs ar i se . I n O c t ob er1990, t he St at e t r i ed Si m on f ort he c api t al
mu r d e r s o f

C a r l P a r k e r , Bo b b i e J o e P a r k e r , a n d Gr e g o r y P a r k e r , ac a s e t h a twe ref er t o as S im on II
. Aj u ry f ou n d S i m on gu i l t y on a l lt h ree c ou n t s and ret u rned a sentence of

dea t h on each coun t
. Th e Su prem e C ou rtof M i ssi ssi pp il ater
a ffir m e dS im o n ’ s co n v ic tio n a n ds e n te n c e . S ee S i m on v. S t ate( S i m on I I, D i rec t A pp ea l) , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d7 9 1 (M is s .), cer t
. den i ed , 5 2 1 U .S

. 1 1 2 6 (19 9 7 ). S i m on l aterfil ed a pro se p et i t i on forh abea s rel i ef in the S u prem e C ou rt
o f M is s is s ip p i. S ee S i m o n v. S t ate( S i m on I

I, S t ateHab eas) , 857 So. 2d 668 (M i ss . 2003)

. T h e c our tdeni ed Si m on’ s pet i t i on, and he t hen f i l ed a fede r al h a b e a s p e tit io n i n th e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i. Se eSi m o n v . Epps ( S i m on I I, F ederalHab eas) , N o. 2: 04- c v- 26, 2007 W L 4292 498 ( N
. D
. M i ss . N ov. 30, 200 7)

. Th e d istri ctcourtden i ed rel i ef on allof

Sim on ’ s c l ai m s and l ater d e n ie d a C O A to th is co u r t. Se eSi m o n v . Epp s ( Si m o n I I , De n i a lof

COA) , N o. 2: 04- c v- 26, 2008 W L 762182 ( N
. D
. M i ss . M ar . 19, 2008)

. Si m on now appeal s t hat d e n i a lo f

aCOA. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW To o bt ai n ha be as r e l i e f und e r 28 U
. S. C. § 2 25 4, Si m o n m us ts ho w t he S u prem e C ou rtof

M i ssi ssipp i ’ s r esol u t i on of hi s c l ai m s w as contr ar yt o, or i nvolved an unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on o f, c l ear l y e st abl i she d fede r all aw as det er m i ned by t he S upre m e Court

. 28 U
. S. C

. § 2254( d) ( 1)

. Bu tbe f or e w e have j uri sdi c t i on t o r ul e o n t he m er i t s of hi s appeal , Si m on m ustob t ai n a C O AbyN o. 08- 70011

4 m a k i n g“ as u b s t a n t i a ls h o wi n go f t h e d e n i a lo f

ac o n s t i t u t i o n a lr i g h t
. ” 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); Miller -E l v . Co c k re ll , 5 37 U
. S. 3 22 , 3 36 ( 20 03 )

. “U nde rt he
con trollin gs ta n d a r d , ap e tit io n e rm u s t s h o w th a t r e a s o n a b le j u ri sts cou l dde b a te
w h et h er (or, f

or th at m att er, agree t h at) t h e petit i on shou l d hav e been res olved i n a dif fer entm anner orthatt he i ss ues pr es ent ed w er e a d eq uat e t o de se rve en cou ra ge m en t t o p roce edf u rth er.” Mi l le r - El , 5 37 U
. S. a t3 36 ( alt e r at i o n a nd quo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d)

. “A p r i s o ne r s e e ki ng a CO A m us t pr o vesom e t hi ng
m ore th an t h e a bsen ce of f rivol i t y or th e exi st en ce of m ere good fai t h on h i s or h er p a rt. ” I

d. at 338 ( q u o ta tion m arks om i t t ed). “T h e petit i on er m u st de m o ns t r at e t hatr e as o nab l e j ur i s t s w o ul d f i nd the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a s s e s s m e nt of th e con sti tu ti on a lclaim s d eb a tab l e or w ron g.” I d. (qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ).

“ [A] cl ai m can be d ebatable even t h ou gh every j u ri stof reason m i gh tagree, af t er t he C O Ahas bee n gr ant ed and t he ca se h a s r ec eived f ul lc ons i der at i on, t hat p eti ti on er w i l ln ot p rev a i l
. ” I d. F in a lly , “a n y d o u b ts a s to w h e th e raC O As h o u ld i ssu e m u st be reso lve di n [th e p eti ti on er’ s] fav or.” R am i r ez v. D r e t ke , 398 F. 3d 6 9 1 , 6 9 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( a lter a tion inor igin a l, q u o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A l t h ou gh h e presents t h em as t h ree argum en t s, Sim on ess en t i al l y rai ses fo u rcla im s o f in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. H e p r im a r ilyco n te n d s th a t h is t r i alc o uns e lfail e d t o a de qua t e l y i nve s t i ga t e hi s hi s t o r y o f fam i l i ala bus e a nd t h u s di d n otp resent a prop er c ase f or m i t i gati on at sentenci n g. Secon d, Sim on c o n t e n d s t h a th i s t r i a lc o u n s e lw a s i n e f fe c t iv e i n fa i l i n gt o c o r r o b o r a t e h i s c l a i ms t hathi s c onfes si on w as ph ys i c al l y co er c ed. Th i r d, S i m on c ont ends t hathi s t r i al
c ounse lfai l ed t o use ext r a for - c ause chal l enges tost r i ke bi as ed j uro r s. Fi nal l y, Si m on as se r t s t hat hi s c ounse l fai l ed t o adequat ely r ehabil i t at e j uro r s w ho had
r ef use d t o i m pos e the dea t h penal t y. A l lof S i m on’ s c l ai m s ar e gove r ned by St r i c kland ’ s t w o- pa rtst an da rd f orN o. 08- 70011

5 in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . Se eSt r i ckl and , 466 U
. S. at687
. U nde rt hi s s t and ar d, Si m on m ustshow ( 1) thath i s c ounse l ’ s perf or m ancew as def

i c i ent , and ( 2) t hat th is d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e p r eju d ic e dh im
. I d. For c ounse l ’ s per f or m ancet o b e defi ci en t , he or she m u st co m m it“ error s s o ser i ou s t h at c ou n selw as not fu n c tio n in ga s th e ‘ c o u n s e l’g u a r a n te e dth e d e fen d a n t b yth e S ix th A m e n d m e n t.” I d. W e j u d g e cou n sel ’ s perf orm an ce agai n st“ an obj ect ive st an da rd of
rea s o n a b le n e ss. ” I

d. a t 6 8 8
. T h e r e a r e n o s tr ic t g u id e lin e s fo rm a k in gth is de t e r m i nat i o n; w hatc o ns t i t ut e s de f i c i e ntpe r f

o r m anc e i s f

l ui d a nd e vo lvi ng, a nd
w e m ustm eas ure c ounse l ’ s per f or m anceagai nstt he “p revai l i ng pr of es si onal
n o r m s ” o f le g a l p r a c tic e . I d. ; seealso R ompil la v. B eard , 545 U
. S. 374, 380–81 ( 20 05 )

. I nde e d, t he Supr e m e Cour tha s e m pha s i zed t h att he r e a r e no

“ m echa n i calrul es” w h en add ress i n g a cl ai m of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce: [T ] h e ul t i m ate f

ocus of i n qu i ry m u stbe on the f u n da m en t alfai rness of t h e proceedi n g w h ose r esul ti s bei n g cha l l en ged
. I n e v e ry case t h e co ur ts ho ul d b e c o nc e r ne d wi t h whet he r , de s pit e t he s t r o ng p r e s u m p tio n o f r e lia b ility , t h e r e s u lt o f th e p a r tic u la rp r o c e e d in gis unreli abl e b ec ause of a br eakdow n i n t he adve r sa r i a lpr oc es s t hat ou r s yst em coun t s on t o produ ce j u stres u l t s. St r i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 6
. In m a k in gth is d e te r m in a tio n , w e m u s t c o n s id e ra ll
r e l e va ntc i r c um s t anc e s , i nc l udi ng, f o re xa m pl e , pr ac t i c e g ui de s f r o m t he A m e r ic a n B a rA s s o c ia tio n . I d. a t 6 8 8 ; s e e, e . g. , A MERICAN B AR A SS OCIAT I ON G UI DEL I NESF OR T HE A P P OI NTMENTAND P ERFORMANCE O F C O U N S E LI N D E ATH P E NALTY C AS ES( 19 89 )

. St i l l , no s i ngl e s e t o f r ul e s c an de f i ni t ive l y de t e r m i ne t he
s u ffic ie n c yo f c o u n s e l’ s p e r fo r m a n c e . St r i c kland , 4 66 U
. S. a t6 88–8 9. And i m p orta n tly, ou r as ses sm en t of cou n sel’ s p erform ancei s “h i gh l y d eferen ti a l
. ” I d. at 689. W e m u stavoi d the bi asi n g ef fectof hi n dsi gh t , an d w e t h eref ore e nt e r t ai n a“ s t r o ng presum pt i o n t hatc o uns e l ’ s c o nduc tfall s w i t hi n t he w i de
ran ge of

reasonab l e professi on ala ssi st an ce; t h at i s, t h e defen da n tm u st
overcom e t h e presum pti on t h at, un der t h e circum st an ces, t h e chal l en gedact i onN o. 08- 70011

6 m i gh t be co n sider edsou n dtri a lstrateg y.” I d. (qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). A s t o St r i c kland ’ s second r equ i rem en t , f or coun sel ’ s def

i ci en tperf

orm an ce t o pr ej udi c e ade fe nda nt , c o uns e l ’ s e r r o r s m us t be “ s o s e r i o us as t o de pr ivet he d efen d a n t of

a fa irt r ia l, a tri a lw h ose resu l t i s reli a b l e.” I d. at 687
. U n der St r i c kland ’ s prej u di ce r equ i rem en t , “ [t] h e defen da n tm u stshow t h at th ere i s a reasona bl e probab i l i t y t h at, bu tf or c ou n sel ’ s u n professi on alerrors, t h e res u l tof th e pro cee d i n g w ou l d h a ve b ee n d i ff ere n t. ” I

d. a t 6 9 4
. “Area son a b l e p rob a b i l i ty i s a p rob a b i l i ty su ff

i ci en t t o u n d erm i n e con fi d en ce in th e ou tcom e.” I d. F in a ll y , w h e n ap e tition e r c a n n o t sa tisfyon e co m p o n e n t of St r i c kland , th e r e is n o n e e dto a s s e s s th e o th e r . I d. at697, 700. A . F a il u re to In v e stig a te S i m on f i rstargu es t h at hi s t ri alcoun selrenderedi n ef fect ive assi st an ce du ri n g t h e sentenci n g ph ase of h i s t ri al
. Si m on asser t s t h at hi s c ou n selfai l ed t o c ond u c tan i nves t i gat i on i nt o hi s bac kgr ound, w her ei n co unselw oul d have fo u n da h is to r yo f a b u s e a t t h e h a n d s o f S im o n ’ s fa th e r . A c c o r d in gto S im o n , h is
coun sel ’ s fai l u re t o u n cover t h i s h i st ory of abu se resul t ed i n t h e presentat i on of
a w oe f ul l y w eak c as e f

orm i t i gat i on. Si m on f urt hercont ends t hat , i f the j ury had h eard of

hi s hi st ory of

abu se, t h ere i s a reasona bl e probab i l i t y t h at itw ou l d n ot hav e s e nt e nc e d hi m t o de at h. T h e S u p rem e C ou rt of M i ssissi p p ide n i edS i m o n ’ s claim on this po i n t. A c c o r d in gto th a tc o u r t , itw a s r e a s o n a b le fo rc o u n s e l n o tto in v e s t ig a t e S im o n ’s hi s t o r y o f a b u s e b e c a u s e S i m o n h a d n o t t o l d h i s c o u n s e l o f t h i s a b u s e . I n t he court’ s w ords, [W ] e d o not f

i n d that t ri alcoun sel ’ s c on du ctfel lbel ow t h e ordi n ary st an da rd of

assi st an ce of

coun selbecau se he di d n ot in q u ir e — w ith o u t p r o m p tin g
— in to th e p o s s ib ilityo f a b u s e o f h is c lie n t a s a c h ild
. . . . S im o n h a s fa ile dto s h o w inth e re c o r da n din h is a ffid a v its th a t h is co u n s e l k n e w o rh a d r e a s o n to k n o w o f h is pa s ta bus e g ive n hi s a nd [t he de fe ns e ps yc ho l o gi s t ’ s ] i nve s t i ga t i o n.N o. 08- 70011

7 Si m o n I

I ( St ateHab eas) , 857 So. 2d at 685. A ccor di n g t o t h e court , becau se th ere w a s n o ev i d en ce th a t S i m on ’ s tri a lcou n sel ha dan y re a son to i n ve sti ga te S im o n ’ s p a s t, h e co u ldn o t b e in e ffe c tiv e fo rfa ilin gto d o s o . I d. Th e courtal so h e ld , a lte r n a tiv e ly , th a t S im o n co u ldn o t s h o w p r eju d ic e o n th i s c l a im
. I d. A c c or di ng t o the c our t , “ [ e] vi denc e of S i m on’ s abuseas a c hi l d .
. . w oul d nothave h a dare a so n a b le p ro b a b ilityof ch a n g in gth e j u ry ’ s s e n te n c e fro m d e a th to life h a dit bee n pr ese n tedto t h em . ” I d. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a g r e e dw ith th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f M is s is s ip p i. Acc o r di ng t o t he di s t r i c tco ur t , “ [t] he fac tt hatc o uns e ldi d no tunc o ve ro rpr e s e nt evi denc e o f

an abus i ve fam i l y hi st or y i s noti ndi c at ive of a l ac k of

t r i al prepa rat i on w h ere c ou n selw as given no i n f orm ati on t h at w ou l d su ggest such
a b u se h a dbe en pr ese n t. ” S i m on I I ( F ederalHab eas) , 2007 W L 4292 498, at*1 9. T h e di st ri ct co u rt al so hel d that Si m on fai l ed to show t h at th e Su prem e C ou rt of M i ss i ss i ppihad er r ed i n i t s det er m i nat i on t hatc ounse l ’ s purpor t ed fai l i ngs p r eju d ic e dh im
. I

d. W e f i n dt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s r e s o l ut i o n o f t h i s c l a i m d e b a t a b l e , a n dwe t her ef or e gr ant a C O A

. A t i ss ue i s c ounse l ’ s dut y t o i nves ti ga te a ca p i t al de fe nd a nt ’ s h i s t o r yo f a b us e i n p r e p a r i ngac a s e f o rm i t i g a t i o n a ts e nt e nci ng. L i ke an y cl ai m of

i n ef fect ive assi st an ce, w e m u stassess t h e reasonab l en ess of
c o uns e l ’ s i nve s t i ga t i o n i n li ghto f a l lr e l e va ntc i r c um s t an ces. One r e l e va nt
c ir c u m s ta n c e , o f c o u r s e , is t h e in fo r m a tio n th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a s p r o v id e dh is
o rhe rt r i alc o uns e l
. As t he Supr e m e Cour tno t e d i n St r i c kland , “t he
r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f c o u n s e l’ s a c tio n s m a yb e d e te r m in e d o rs u b s ta n tia lly i n flu en cedbythe de fen d a n t’ s ow n statem en ts or action s”: C ou n sel ’ s a ction s are u sua l l y based , qu i t e properl y, on i n f orm ed st rat egi c choi ces m ad e by t h e defenda n t an d on i n f orm ati on sup pl i ed byt h e de fen d a n t
. I n parti cul ar, w h at i n vest i gati on deci si on s are reasona bl e dep en ds c ritic ally on such i n f orm ati on . ForN o. 08- 70011

8 exam pl e, w h en t h e fact s t h a t sup port a cert ai n potenti all i n e of de fe ns e a r e g e ne r all y kno w n to c o uns e lb e c aus e o f w hatt he d efen danthas sa i d, t he nee d f orf urt heri nves t i gat i on m ay be c o ns i derabl y di m i ni s he d o re l i m i nat e d a l t o ge t he r . And when a d e fe n d a n t h a s g iv e n c o u n s e l r e a s o n to b e lie v e th a t p u r s u in gce r ta in i n vest i gati on s w ou l d be f rui t l ess or even h arm f u l , coun sel ’ s fai l u re t o pur sue t hos e i nves t i gat i on s m ay notl at erbe c hal l enged as u n rea son a b l e. Ins h ort, i n q u i ryi n to cou n sel’ s con ve rsa ti on s w i th t h e d e fe n d a n tm a yb e c r it ic a l t o ap r o p e ra s s e s s m e n to f c o u n s e l’s i n vest i gati on deci si on s, j u stas itm ay be crit i calt o a proper assessm en tof

coun sel ’ s ot h er li t i gati on deci si on s. 466 U
. S. at691. T h at bei n g sai d, t h e i n f orm ati on the defenda n tp rovi des t o coun seli s not di s po s i t i ve , a nd St r i c klanddi d notc r eat e a per s eru l e th a t cou n sel’ s d u ty to i n v e s t i g a t e b e g i n s a n de n d s w i t h i n f o r ma t i o n g l e a n e df

r o m t h e d e fe n d a n th i mor herself

. I n deed , such a bri gh t
- l i n e rul e w ou ldb e ini m i calt o St r i c kland ’s
m an da t e o f

c as e - by

- c as ec o ns i de r ati o n. I ns t e ad , c o unsel ’ s deci si on t o i n vest i gate, lik e a lloth e rs , m u st b e re a so n a b le inli g h t of a ll t h e rel evan tcircum st an ces: [ S] t r at e gi cc ho i c e s m ad e a f t e rt ho r o ughi nve s t i ga t i o n of l aw and fact s r el evan tt o pl au sibl e opti on s are v i rt u al l y u n cha l l en geab l e; an d st rat egi c c h oi ces m ad e af t er l ess t h an com p let e i n vest i gati on ar e r eas onabl e pre c i se l y t o t he ext entthatreas onabl e pr of es si onal j u dg m en t s sup port t h e l i m i t ati on s on i n vest i gati on . I n ot h er w ords, coun selha s a du t y t o m ak e reasonab l e i n vest i gati on s ort o m ak e a r e as o nab l e dec i s i o n t h a tmak e s p a r t i c u l a ri n v e s t i g at i o ns u n n ecess ary. I n an y i n ef fect iven ess case, a parti cul ar deci si on not t o i nve s t i ga t e m us tbe di r e c t l y as s e s s e d f o rre as o nab l e ne s s i n a l lt he c ir c u m s t a n c e s , a p p ly in ga h e a v ym e a s u r e o f d e fe r e n c e to c o u n s e l’s j u dg m en t s. I d. a t 6 9 0

– 9 1 ; se e a lso R o mp illa , 545 U
. S

. at 383 ( “ [R ] eason ably di l i gen tcoun sel
m ay d raw a l i n e w h en t h ey h ave good reason t o t h i n k f u rt h er i n vest i gati on w o u ldb e aw a ste .”)

. A l on g th ese l i n e s , sev era lpo st- St r i c klandd e c i s i o n s f r o m th e S u p r e me C our tm ake c l eart hatc ounse l ’ s dec i si on t o c eas e i nves t i gat i ng a c api t alN o. 08- 70011

9 de fe nda nt ’ s pa s t

— o re ve n no tt o i nve s t i ga t e ita ta l l

— m us tb e i nf o r m e d a nd
r e a s o n a b le
. See, e . g. , R o mp illa , 5 4 5 U .S . 3 7 4 ; Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 529 U
. S. 362 (2 0 0 0 ). O f

parti cul ar rel evan ce i s Wig g in s v . S m ith , 5 3 9 U
. S

. 5 1 0 (20 0 3 ), in
w h i ch the C ou rtspoke at l en gth of how w e shou l d eva l u ate c ou n sel ’ s deci si on
r e ga r di ng an i nve s t i ga t i o n i nt o m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e . I n Wigg i ns , a c api t al d e fe n d a n t’s tr ia l co u n s e l d idn o t in v e s tig a te th e d e fe n d a n t’s life h is to r yo rfa m ily ba c kg r o und— w hi c h, i tt ur ns o ut , i nc l ude d as ubs t ant i alhi s t o r y o f a bus e — and th e r e fo r e p r e s e n te dn o e v id e n c e o f a b u s e a ts e n te n c in g . I d. at516. I n an opi ni on by Just i ce O ’ C on nor , t he C our thel d t hatc ounse l ’ s as si st ancew as i n effec tiv e , as t h ere w as no reason or j u st i f i cat i on f

or c ou n sel ’ s fai l u re t o l ook i n t o t h e defen da n t ’ s past. Th e C ou rtem ph asi zed tha t the p ert i n en tqu est i on w as “w h et h er th e i n vest i gati on sup porti n g coun sel’ s deci si on not t o i n t rodu ce
m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e o f [ a de fe nda nt ’ s ] b ac kg r o und w a s itse lf re a so n a b le

. ” I d. at 523
. T h u s, the facttha tcou n selacqu i res s o mein fo r m a tio n d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r ily
r e n d e rco u n s e l e f

fe c t i v e . I

d. a t5 27
. I ns t e ad , c o uns e lm us tha ves uf f i c i e nt i n form a ti on f

rom w h ic h t h e y co u l dm a k e area son edstrateg i c d ecisi on n ot to pu rsue ad di t i on alevi den ce of abu se: In a s s e s s in gth e r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f a n a tt o r n e y ’ s in v e s tig a tio n , . . . a c o ur tm us tc o ns i de rno to nl y t he q uan t u m o f e vi de nc e a l r e ad y know n t o co unsel , butal sow het hert he know n evi denc e w oul d l ead a r e as o nab l e a t t o r ne y t o i nve s t i ga t e f ur t h er. Eve n a s s um i ng [c o uns e li n Wigg i ns ] l i m i t ed the scope of t h ei r investi gati on f or s tr a te g icre a s o n s , St r i c klanddo e s n o test abli sh that a cursor y i n vest i gati on au t om ati cal l y j u st i f i es a t act i caldeci si on w i t h res pect t o s e nt e nc i ng s t r at e gy . R at he r , a re vi e w i ng c o ur tm us tco ns i de rt he r eas onabl enes s of

t he i nves t i gat i on s ai d t o s upportt hats t r at egy . I d. In o th e rw o r d s , co u r ts m u s t d e te r m in e w h e th e r“t h e d e c i s io n to ce a s e a ll i n ve sti ga ti on . . . a ctu a l l y d em on strate dre a son a b l e p rofession a lj u d gm en t. ” I d. T h e Wigg i nsC ou rt m a d e cl ea r th a t cou n sel i s n ot req u i red“t o inv estiga te every conceivab l e li n e of m i t i gati n g evi den ce n o m att er h ow u n l i kely the ef f ortN o. 08- 70011

10 w o u ld b e to a ssist th e d efen d a n t at sen ten ci n g.” I d. a t5 3 3
. I ta l s o n o t e dt hat St r i c klanddoes n otrequir e “ def ens e c ounse lt o pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi denc e a t
sen ten ci n g inev erycas e.” I d. B u t, a s th e C o u r t h a dp r e v io u s lys ta te din St r i c kland , “str a te g i c c h oi ces m ad e af t er l ess t h an com pl et e i n vest i gati on are
r e as o nab l eo nly t othee xt e ntth at r eason able professi on alj u dg m en t s s u pp or tthe lim ita tio n s o n in v e s tig a tio n . A d e c is io n n o t to in v e s tig a te th u s ‘ m u s t b e d ir e c tly
a s ses sed f

or re a son a b l en ess i n allthe ci rcu m stan ces.’” I d. (c i t a t i o n s a nd q u o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). As t o t he t r i alc o uns e li n Wigg i ns , t h e C ou rtf ou n d that t h ei r i n vest i gati on w as n otreason able, a s the defend an t ’ s “ coun selaba n don ed thei r i n vest i gati on of [t h e defen da n t ’ s] backg roun d aft er h a v ing acqu i red only r u di m en t ary k n ow l ed ge of h i s h i storyf rom a n a rrow s e t o f s o u rces . ” I d. at 524
. M oreover, c o u n s e l’ s lim ite din v e s tig a tionrev ea l edl ea d s th a t an y co m p eten t a tt o r n e yw o u ld hav e pur s ue d, a s do i ng s o “w as ne c e s s ar y t o m ak i ng an i nf o r m e d c ho i c e a m o ng p oss ib l e d efen ses . ” I d. a t5 25
. I nde e d, couns e li n Wigg i nsf ou n d n o evi den ce t hata m i t i gat i on c as e w oul d have been c ount er pro duct ive, s uch t hatt hey had
n o reason t o ceaseth e i rin v e s tig a tio n . I d. In b ri ef, cou n sel’ s “fa i l u re to in v e s t i g a te th o r o u g h lyre s u lte dfr o m in a tt e n tio n , n o t r e a s o n e ds tr a te g ic j u d gm en t. ” I

d. at526. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e a c t u a l co n t o u r s o f S im o n ’s t r i a lc o u n s e l’s i nve s t i ga t i o n i nt o hi s hi s t o r y o f fam i l i al ab us e i s unc l e ar . I n hi s pe t i t i o n t o t he S u p r e m e C o u r t o f M is s is s ip p i, S im o n a tt a c h e ds e v e r a l s ta te m e n ts fr o m fa m ily
m em bers w h o rel ayed st ori es of abu se an d s ai d that Si m on ’ s c ou n selnev er contact ed them
. Th e S u prem e C ou rtof M i ssi ssi pp idi d n otorder an evi den t i ary h eari n g on the m att er. I n st ead , t ak i n g t h e st atem en t s of Sim on ’ s fam i l y as t rue, t he c our thel d thatS i m on’ s t r i alcounse lw as noti nef fec t ive bec ause t her e w as no e vi de nc e “t hatSi m o n’ s t r i alc o uns e lw as e ve rt o l d b e f o r e o r dur i ng t heN o. 08- 70011

11 sen ten ci n g p h a se o f tri a ltha t Sim on w a s ab u sed as a ch i l d
. ” S im o n II (S ta te Hab eas) , 8 5 7 S o . 2 d a t 6 8 5
. I n s o d o in g , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r to f M i s s is s ip p i’s deci si on m i gh tsugg estt h at even i f Sim on ’ s tr i alcou n selm ad e no i n vest i gati on i n t o Sim on ’ s hi st ory of abu se, t h e deci sio n to d o so w as j u st i f i ed becau se t h ere w as no e vi de nc e thatc o uns e lw as a w ar e o f s uc h ahi s t o r y. W e c o nc l ude t hatt he qu est i on of

w h e th er th e Su prem e C ou rtof M i ssi ssi pp ireasonab l y ap pl i ed St r i c kland ’ s de f

i c i e nt
- pe r f

o r m anc e pr o ng i s de ba t ab l e am o ng j ur i s t s o f r e as o n. A s t o prej u di ce, t h e Su prem e C ou rtof M i ssi ssi pp ihel d that an y evi den ce o f fa m ilia l a b u s e — e v e n if f u r th e rd e v e lo p e da t a n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in g
— w o u ld
n otha ve h ada reason a b le p ro bab i l i t y of al t eri n g t h e j u ry’ s s en t en ce w h en c o n s id e r e da g a in s t t h e h e in o u s n e s s o f th e cr im e s . S ee S i m on I I ( S t ateHab eas) , 857 S o. 2d a t 68 5
. B u tbecau se Si m on ’ s t ri alcoun selpresented no evidence of abu se atsente n ci n g, w e concl u de that iti s debatable am on g j u ri st s of reason w h et h er th ere i s a r eason ablepr o bability thatt h e devel opm en tan d p resentat i on o f S im o n ’s h is t o r yo f a b u s e w o u ldh a v e i n fl u e n c e dt h e ju r y ’s a p p r a is a l o f S im o n ’s
m o r a l cu lp a b ility
. Cf

. Wigg i ns , 539 U
. S. at537–38
. W i t ho utpa s s i ng j udg m e nto nt he Supr e m e Cour to f M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s de c i s i o n, w e th i n ktha t j u ri sts of rea son can de b a te the m erits of S i m on ’ s cl a i m on th is poi nt
. W e ther ef

or e gr anta CO Aon Si m on’ s c l ai m of i nef fec t ive as si st ance at sentenci n g. W e al so requ esta dd i t i on albri ef i n g on t h i s c l ai m an d h ave i n cl u ded de t ail e d i ns t r uc t i o ns i n t he Conc l us i o n. B . Fai l ure t o D eve l op E vi dence o f P hysi calC oer ci on S i m on nex targu es th at hi s c ou n selw as i n ef fect ive in fa il in gt o of fer w itn e s s e s to co r r o b o r a te h is a s s e r tio n th a t t h e p o lic e p h y s ic a ll yco e r c e dh is
con fessi on . S i m on con fes s e d t o the P a rk ers’m u rd ers sh ortly after h i s ar rest. Bef o r e t he t r i ali n Si m o n I, h e m o v e d t o s u p p r e s s t h e c o n fe s s i o n a s c o e r c e d
. At t he s upp r e s s i o n he ar i ng, Si m o n’ s t r i alcou n se lf o c us e d p r i m ar i l y o n t heN o. 08- 70011

12 argu m en tt h at th e confessi on w as p sy ch o log ica lly , n ot p hy sic a lly , c o e r c e d. The
o n lye v id e n c e o f p h y s ic a l c o e r c io n a tth e s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in gc a m e f r o m S im o n ’s
ow n t est i m on y an d a bri ef rem ark f

rom an ot h er w i t n ess. Th e sup pressi on
m ot i on w as u l t i m ately u n successf u l
. La t er, du ri n g t h e S im on II tr ia l, S im o n ’s tr ia l cou n sel did n ot arg u e th a t th e con fessi on w a s p h ys i ca l l y co erce d , ag a in f o c us i ng o n ps yc ho l o gi c alc o e r c i o n. S i m on now contends that hi s t ri alcoun selw as inef fect ive becau se c ou n sel fail e d t o o f

fer thet e s t i m o ny o f t hr e e w i t ne s s e s — hi s m o t he r , w i fe , a nd b roth e r— w h o w ou l dh a ve corro b ora tedS i m on ’ s cl a i m of p h ys i ca lcoer ci on . In t h ree docum en t s at t ach ed to h i s pet i t i on for federalha beas, Sim on ’ s brot h er,
m o th e r , a n dw ife a ll a s s e r t t h a t t h e yv is ite dS im o n a“c o u p le ” o f w e e k s a fte rh is confes si on . T h ese w i t n esses a l l ege t h at S i m on d i spl ayed v i sibl e si gn s of abu se an d h adsai d that pol i ce had b eaten h i m . A aron Sim on , Sim on ’ s brot h er, st ated t hat Si m on’ s “fac e w as br ui se d and s w oll en. ” M or eo ver , Si m on t ol d A ar on “t hat l aw enfor cem en tha d j u m ped o n hi m an d bea t en hi m up . ” Final l y, A aron assert ed that he saw Sim on short l y bef ore hi s arr e st a n d, at t h at t i m e, Sim on s h o we dn o n e o f

t h e i nj u r i e s t h a tA a r o n l a t e rs a w. R osi e L ee Sim on , Sim on ’ s m ot h er, st ated t h at Si m on ’ s “h ea d w a s very sw oll en f

r om havi ng bee n beat en. H i s l ef teye w a s b rui se d, hi s hand w as shaki ng, and he s ai d ‘ They be at m e up s o ba d. ’” Ros i e Lee no t e d that she i s a t rai n ed C N Aan d thu s kn ow s how to recogn i ze si gn s of abu se. Sh e al so al l eges t h at s h e t ol d S i m on ’ s t ri alcoun selof hi s i nj u ri es. M ar th a Sim on , Sim on ’ s w i fe, sai d i n an un si gn ed st atem en tt h at Si m on

“h adbeen bad l y beaten. ” I n her w ords, Hi s h e a da n dfa c e w e r e s wo l l e n a n dIs a w h e w a s l i mp i n gb a d l y . H e s ai d the po l i c e ha d b e at e n hi m u p. Itw as pit i f ul
. H i s e ye s a nd m ou t h w ere allsw ol l en . I had a ha rd t i m e un derst an di n g becau se hi s m out h w as s o s w oll en. Idi dn’ tr ec ogni ze hi m w hen I fi rsts awN o. 08- 70011

13 h i m. L i ke R osi e L ee Sim on , M art h a S i m on stat ed t h at she w as trai n ed t o rec ogn i ze si gn s of abu se. I n addre ss i ng t hi s i ss ue, t he Su pre m e C our t of M i ss i ss i ppi hel d that S im o n h a de s ta b lis h e dn e ith e rd e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e n o rp r eju d ic e . S ee S i m on II ( S t ateHab eas) , 857 So. 2d at 6 86– 87. A s t o t h e sup pressi on hea ri n g, t h e court f o und t hat Si m o n’ s fam i l y m e m be r s ’t e s t i m o ny w o ul d ha vea dde d no t hi ng t o t he
e v id e n c e th a tc o u n s e ld idin tr o d u c e . I d. T h e co u r t fir s t n o te dth a t t h e fa m ily
m em ber s’t es t i m ony w as bo t h se l f s ervi ng and hear sa y, and i t w oul d l i kely have d r a w n as u c c e s s fu l o bje c tio n fr o m th e p r o s e c u tio n . I d. at6 87
. Put t i ng t hati s s ue a s id e , th e co u r t fo u n d t h a t t h e fa m ilym e m b e r s ’te s tim o n yw o u ldh a v e m e r e ly repeated w h at Si m on ha d tol d them , w h i ch S i m on ha d alr ead y i n t rodu ced th r o u g h h is o w n te s tim o n y . I d. Ac c o r di ng t o t he c o ur t , t he o nl y i nde pe nde nt in fo r m a t i o n i n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y — p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s o f S im o n ’s inju r ie s — w o u ldh a v e b e e n o f litt le v a lu e . I d. Th e courtal so noted t h at th ese inju r ie s co u ldh a v e h a ds o u r c e s o th e rth a n th e p o lic e . I d. A s t o th e t ri al , t h e courtagain f ou n d that Si m on ’ s fam i l y m em bers’ te s tim o n y w o u ld n o t h a v e s u rv iv e d a n o bje c tio n b yth e S ta te
. I d. A s S im o n d id
n ot testify at th e tri a l , h i s fa m i l y m em b ers a l so co u l dn ot h a ve be en u sed to
c o r r o b o r a te h is cla im s o f p h y s ic a l a b u s e . I d. Fi nal l y, t he courtnot ed that S i m on ’ s t ria l co u n selw ou l d h ave h adt o overcom e t h e adv erse sup pressi on
r u lin g . I

d. The Suprem e Courtof M i ss i ss i ppit hus hel d thatSi m on’ s t r i al
coun sel ’ s deci si on s w ere s t rat egi c and t h eref ore not defi ci en tun der St r i c kland

. I d. The c o ur ta l s o a ddr e s s e d St ri ckland ’ s seco n dcom p on en t, pr ejud i ce. It
n ot ed that Si m on ’ s t est i m on y at th e su pp ress i on h eari n g w as suf f i ci en tt o rai se th e is s u e o f w h e th e rh is co n fe s s io n w a s v o lu n ta r y . I d. A s t o t h e t ri al , t h e courtN o. 08- 70011

14 d e te r m in e dt h a t e v e n if th e ju r yh a dh e a r dth e fa m ilym e m b e r s ’te s tim o n y , it
w ou l d h ave l i t t l e reason t o di sr egardSim on ’ s c on fessi on becau se “t h ere [w as] l i ttl e else i n the r e c ord to estab l i sh its i n vo l u n tarin ess . ” I d. M oreover, reg a rd l ess of th e con fessi on , the re w a s su b stan ti a lev i d en ce of S i m on ’ s gu i l t: H a d S im o n ’ s c o n fe s s io n to p o lic e b e e n e x c lu d e d , th e r e w o u lds till e xi s thi s i nc ul pa t o r y s t at e m e nt s t o hi s c e l l m at e , hi s pr e s e nc e dur i ng t h e robbery t o gett h e gu n s used i n t h e m u rd e rs, t h e P arkers’ be l ongi ngs f

o und athi s M e m phi s a pa r t m e nt , hi s o bs e rve d f l i ght f rom t h e P arkers’pi cku p tr u ck t h e ni gh tof t h e m u rder, an d th e fact t h at he w as w eari n g som e of t h e cl ot h i n gs to len f rom t h e P arkers w he n he w as a r r e s t e d. I d. T h u s , t h e c o u r tc o n c lu d e d , “ S im o n fa il [e d ] t o d e m o n s t r a t e h o w tr ia l c o u n s e l’s fai l ure t o c al lhi s fam i ly m em ber s att he s uppres si on hea ri ng and t r i al p r eju d ic e dth e tr ia l c o u r t’s r u lin g o n th e is s u e o r th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l its e lf.” I d. T h e di st ri ctcourthel d that t h e Su prem e C o u rtof M i ssi ssi pp iha d n ot
e r r e dinit s a s s e s s m e n t o f th is in e ffe c tiv e -a s s is ta n c e cla im
. T h e co u r t p a id
s pe c i ala t t e nt i o n t o t he de t ail s o f Si m o n’ s i nj ur i e s , no t i ng t hatt he i nj u ri es Si m o n’ s fam i l y m e m be r s o bs e rve d ( s w o l l e n e ye s a nd m o ut h) w e r e i nc o ns i s t e nt
w i t h Sim on ’ s c l ai m s of abu se (chok i n g an d bei n g pl aced on t h e f l oor w i t h a boot
o rk n e e inh is b a c k ). S ee S i m on I I ( F ederalHab eas) , 2007 W L 4292498, at*1 4. T h e d is t r ic tc o u r ta ls o lo o k e d to th e ti m e fr a m e o f t h e inju r ie s ; S im o n ’s
con fessi on ( a n dthu s an y co n com i tan t ab u se) occu rred tw o da ys a ft er his arre st, y e t h is fa m ily m e m b e r s d id n o t se e h im u n til tw o w e e k s a fte rh is a r r e s t. I d. The
c o ur tf ur t he rno t e d thatSi m o n m ad e hi s i ni t i alappe ar anc e be f o r e a j udg e o ne h ou r af t er givi n g h i s s t atem en tbu tt h ere w as n ot h i n g i n t h e rec ord t o sugg est th a t h e h a db e e n b e a te n p r io rto th a t a p p e a r a n c e . I d. F i n al l y, t h e di st ri ctcourt t houghtt hatt her e w as s uf f i c i entt es t i m ony t o s how t hatSi m on’ s c onfes si on w as
v o l u n t a r y . I

d. Thus , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ude d, t he Supr e m e Cour tofN o. 08- 70011

15 M iss iss ip p i didn o t er r inits a p p li ca tion of St r i c kland

. I d. T h e d i st ri ctcourt la te rd e n ie d a C O Ao n th is cla im , co n c lu d in gth a t t h e d e c is io n w h e th e rto ca ll t h e w i t n esses w as one of t ri alst rat egy an d tha tSim on ha d n otdem on st rat ed th a t t h e fa m ilym e m b e r s ’t e s tim o n yw o u ldb e e ith e ra d m is s ib le o rfa v o r a b le
. S ee Si m o n I I ( Fe d e r a lHa b e a s , De n i a lof COA) , 2008 W L 762182, at*6

. W e d o n o t fin dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s re s o lu tio n o f th is is s u e to b e d e b a ta b le
a m o n gju r is ts o f r e a s o n . Ita p p e a r s th a t S im o n ’ s tr ia l co u n s e l h a dtw o p o s s ib le th e o r ie s fo ra r g u in gt h a t th e c o n fe s s io n w a s c o e r c e d : p s y c h o lo g ic a l a n dp h y s ic a l. T h e case f

or psychol ogi calcoer ci on w as not i n sub st an t i al
. A tt h e sup pressi on h eari n g, Sim on ’ s t ri alcoun selpu shed t h e the o ry t h at f ear of m ob vi ol en ce c au sed S i m on t o confess. Th e t est i m on y of vari ou s w i t n ess e s in di cat es t h at m em bers of t h e com m u n i t y w ere i n censed a tt h e P arkers’m u rder and t h at th ere w as a potenti alf

or vi ol en ce agai n stt h e suspects
. Si m on ’ s t ri alcoun selal so em ph asi zed t h e q u est i on able circum st an ces of S i m on ’ s c on fessi on ; pol i ce di d n ot pre se ntSi m on t o aj udge unt i laf t ert he c onfes si on, and hi s c ounse li m pl i ed that t hey w er e t r yi ng t o ext r ac t a c onfes si on bef or e Si m on i nvoked hi s r i gh t t o c o u n s e l. F in a lly , S im o n ’ s tr ia l co u n s e l s u g g e s te dv a r io u s ra c ia l u n d e r to n e s in Si m o n’ s a r r e s ta nd c o nfe s s i o n. I n c o n t r a s t , t h e c a s e f o rp h y s i c a lc o e r c i o n was q u i t e we a k
. O n l yt wo w itn e s s e s m e n tio n e dth a t S im o n h a db e e n p h y s ic a llya b u s e d
. T h e f ir s t w a s o n ly i n passi ng; Rob e r tBr o w n, w ho s har e d ac e l lw i t h Si m o n s ho r t l y af t e rhe
c o n fe s s e d , t e s t i f

i e dt h a tS i mo n h a ds a i dt h a tt h e i n t e r r o g a t o r s h a db e a t e n h i m. The o nly o t he rt est i m on y as t o phy s i c ala bus e c am e f r o m Si m o n hi m s e l f

. The f i rstal l egedactof

abu se oc curred over a daybef ore Si m on ’ s c on fessi on . Si m on t est i f i ed that, w h il e bei n g h el d aw ai t i n g t ran sfer t o an ot h er pri son, a pol i ce of f i cer sl ap pedhi m i n the ri gh tea r. T h e other t w o a l l egedact s of abu se oc curred dur i ng t he i nt e r r o ga t i o n t hatl e d t o Si m o n’ s co nfe s s i o n; Si m o n t e s t i f i e d t hato neN o. 08- 70011

16 pol i ce of

f i cer chok ed hi m an d th rew h i m t o t h e groun d, at w h i ch point an ot h er o f f i c e rputhi s kne e o rb o o ti n Si m o n’ s b ac k. O n r e but t al , e ve r y o f f i c e r ac c us e d o f ab us i ng Si m o n r e s o l ut e l y de ni e d a ny m i scondu ct , as di d an y of f i cers present w h en t h e abu se al l e g e d l y t ook p l ace. B ef ore heari n g f

rom Sim on ’ s psychol ogi st(w h o ha d to t est i f y l aterdu e t o a sc hedul i ng c onf

l i c t) , t he t r i alc our tex pre ss ed it s beli ef t hatSi m on had
v o lu n ta r ily c o n fe s s e d
. B u t it r e s e rv e d a fin a l ju d g m e n t on th e is s u e u n t il h e a r in gfr o m th e p s y c h o lo g is t. A lth o u g h th e p s y c h o lo g is t’s te s tim o n y(a s w e ll
as t he pa r t i e s ’ f

i nal ar gum e nt s and t he c o ur t ’ s r ul i ng) do no ta ppe art o b e i n t he
r ec or d, w e know t hatt he c our tev ent ual l y r ul ed th a tSi m on’ s c onfes si on w as voluntary. T h e te s tim o n yo f S im o n ’ s fa m ilym e m b e r s w o u ldh a v e a d d e dlit tle to h is
c a s e fo rp h y s ic a l co e r c io n . W h a te v e r it m ig h t h a v e a d d e dw o u lda ls o b e e a s ily
c h a l l e n g e do n c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n . T h e fa mi l yme mb e r s s a w S i mo n r o u g h l yt wo w eeks aft er hi s c on fessi on— an d the al l egedabu se — occurred. Anu m ber of in te rv e n in ga c ts (in c lu d in g , fo re x a m p le , late rbeati n gs f rom pol i ce orpri soners)
c o ul d ha ve c aus e d t he i nj ur i e s . Fur t he r , no o ne w ho s aw Si m o n s ho r t l y af t e rhe
c o nfe s s e d— i nc l udi ng t he c o uns e la ppo i nt e d a f t e rt he co nfe s s i o n— s ai d a nythi ng abou tph ysi cali nj u ri es li ke those describedi n the fam i l y m em bers’st atem en t s. Indeed , af

t er th e confessi on an d all egedb e a tin g , S i m on w as broug h tbef ore a j u dg e f or hi s i n i t i ala p p e a ra n ce, an d h e poi n t s t o nothi n g i n t h e rec ord w h ere an yon e even rem arked on an y si gn s of abu se. In short, Sim on ha s not show n t h at hi s t ri alcoun selm ad e an ythi n g ot h er t han a t ac t i c aldec i si on t o pur sue t he r el at ively s t r ongert heor y o f ps yc hol ogi c al
c oe r c i on o vert he r el at ively w eak er t heor y o f physic alc oe r c i on. Al t hough ul t i m at e l y uns uc c e s s f ul , Si m o n’ s t r i alco uns e lpr e s e nt e d ar e as o nab l e a r gum e nt th a t po l i ce co n cocted an atm osp h ere of fear th a t le d S i m on to con fess. InN o. 08- 70011

17 c ont r as t , Si m on’ s t r i al c ounse l had l i t t l e e vi denc e t o s upportan ar gum entt hat t h e confessi on w as ph ysi cal l y coerc ed, an d m ost of i t (i n cl u di n g t h e t est i m on y of Si m on’ s fam i l y m em ber s) w a s w eak. M or eo ver , Si m on’ s t r i alc ounse lw as proba bl y reasona bl y rel u ct an tto off er th e t est i m on y of

Sim on ’ s fam i l y m em bers, as t h ei r s t atem en t s on ph ysi calcoer ci onw ou l d be qu i t e open t o chal l en ge on c r o s s -e x a m in a tio n . W e d o n o tfin dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s re s o lu tio n o f th is cla im d e b a t a b l e a n dt h e r e f o r e d e n yaCOA. C . Fai l ure t o U s e Ext r a For- C ause C hal l enges atJury Sel ec t i on S i m on nex targu es t h at h i s c ou n selw as i n ef fect ive i n fai l i n g t o use extr a f o r - c aus e c hall e nge s a tj ur y s e l e c t i o n. The pa r t i e s do no tdi s put e t hat , b e f o r e t he t r i ali n Si m o n I, t h e State en gag ed i n substant ia l m iscond u cti n t h e f orm of pretr i alpu blicity . S h ort l y af t er Si m on ’ s arr est , a prosecutorhel d a p ress confer en ce atw h i ch h e a n n ou n ced t h e m u rders an d S i m on ’ s l i n k to th e cr i m es. A s th e prosecutorsai d n ot h i n g abou tt h e presu m p tion of i n n ocence, t h i s press c o n fe r e n c e v io la te dlo c a l e th ic a lc a n o n s . P o lic e o ffic ia ls w e r e a ls o p u b lic ly
com m en t i n g on the cri m es i n vi ol ati on of l ocalrul es. Final l y, af t er th e t ri alcourt h a dset u p pr oce d u res to p rotect S i m on f rom i m p rop erd is c lo s u res, th e S tate i m pr o pe r l y f

i l ed apub l i cm o t i o n c o nt ai ni ng fal s e i nf o r m at i o n a bo utSi m o n, i ncl udi ng an al l ege d j ai l house c onfes si on. U pon f i ndi ng t hatt he St at e had engage d i n m i sc onduct , t he t r i alj udge m ove d t he t r i alt o a not herc ount y. Si m on as se r t s t hat t he St at e c onc ede d t hatany j uro rex pos ed t o pr et r i al p u b l i ci ty sh ou l dbe stru ckf or ca u se. W h en S i m on ’ s tri a lcou n sel l a ter tri edto
c ha ll e ng ef

iv e j uro r s expo se d t o pr et r i alpubli c i t y, t he t r i alc our tdet er m i ned t hat t h e chal l en gedj u rors coul d setasi de w h at th ey h adhea rd a n d d e n ied t h e forc aus e c hall e nge s . Si m o n c o nt e nds t hathi s c o uns e ls ho ul d ha vei nvo ke d the St at e’ s al l ege d c onc es si on t hatany j uro rex pos ed t o pr et r i alpubl i c i t y s houl d be
s t r uc k f or cau se. A c c o r di ng t o Si m o n, c o uns e l ’ s fail ur e t o dos o w as de f i c i e ntN o. 08- 70011

18 perf orm an ce th at r esul t ed i n t h e seat i n g of possibl y prej u di ced j u rors . T h e S u p rem e C ou rt of M i ssissi p p irejectedS i m on ’ s ar gu m en t on th is p o in t. S ee S i m on I

I ( S t ateHab eas) , 857 So. 2d at690–92
. The c our tf ound t hat t h e State h adi n deedm ad e a con cess i on rega rdi n g t h e st riking of j u rors exposed to p r e tr ia l p u b lic ity , b u t n o t t o th e e x te n t t h a t S im o n s u g g e s te d
. I d. at691. Specif i c al l y, t he St at e a d m i t t ed thatany j uro rw ho w as c ont am i nat ed bypr et r i al publ i c i t y ( suc h as one w ho c oul d not l a y a side w hats he had hear d orw ho had al r eady f

or m ed an o pi ni on) sho ul d be st r uck f orc ause , butdi d notc onc ede t hat S i m on w as en t i t l ed t o ex t ra or speci alf or- cau se c h al l en ges f or anyj u ror exp osed to p r e tr ia l p u b lic ity
. In th e co u r t’s w o r d s , I t i s a fa i r r e a d i n g o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t t h a t t h e S t a t e m ad e s uc h a c o nc e s s i o n du r i ng c o ns i de r at i o n o f t he m o t i o n t o di s m i s s . Fr o m t he c o nt e xto f

t he he ar i ng, w e f

i nd t hat t he St at e w as m e r e l y r e pe at i ng t he s t and ar d r o ut i ne l y ap pli e d b y t r i alc o ur t s t o m o t i o ns t o s t r i ke ju r o r s “fo rca u s e .” I d. a t 6 9 1

– 9 2
. A c c o r d in gt o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f M is s is s ip p i, th e n , th e o n ly
c o nc e s s i o n t hatSi m o n’ s c o uns e lc o ul d i nvo ke w as t he St at e ’ s c o nc e s s i o n t hatt he
nor m als t andard f

orf or - c ause c hal l enges appl i ed toj uro r s expo se d t o pr et r i al publ i c i t y. T h e co u r t w e n t o n to fin dth a t a n yfa ilu r e to re m in dth e tr ia l ju d g e o f th is concessi on w as not d ef i ci en tp erf

orm an ce. Itfirstn ot ed that st riking j u rors f or cau se i s l ef

t t o t h e di scr et i on of t h e t ri alj u dg e, an d n on e of t h e j u rors i n qu est i on
m e t t h e s ta n d a r dre q u i r e d fo rafo r -c a u s e s tr ik e . I d. at 692
. Th e courtst ated t hat“ [ e ] ac h o f

t he j ur o r s i n q ue s t i o n i n di cat e d thatt he y c o ul d p uta s i de a ny c o nc l us i o ns t he y hadf o r m e d f r o m t he i re xp o s ur e t o t he pub l i c i t y i n t hi s c as e a nd b e fair a n di m p a rti a ldu ri n g th e tri a l
. ” I d. I t a lso n o ted that Si m on ’ s c ou n sel h a ds u ffic ie n t p e r e m p to r ych a lle n g e s to s tr ik e e a c h o f th e ju r o r s u n s u c c e s s fu lly
c h a lle n g e d fo r c a u s e . I d. Acc or di ng t o the c our t , “ [t] he fac tt hatt hes e par t i c ul arN o. 08- 70011

19 j u rors w ere ul t i m ately seated w i t h ou tb ei n g perem ptoril y st ruck i n di cat es th ey w ere sa ti sfactory to S i m on from a strate gic stan d p oin t. ” I d. A n da s to S im o n ’s
c o uns e l ’ s fail ur e t o i nvo ke a ny c o nc e s s i o n b y t he St at e , t he c o ur tf o und t hatt he
success of

such a n i n vocati on dep en dedon the di scr et i on of t h e t ri alj u dg e: If S i m on ’ s tri a lcou n sel ha drem i n d edthe tri a lco u rt th a t th e S tate h a dm a d e th is co n c e s s io n b e fo r e th e ch a n g e in v e n u e , it is p o s s ib le t he j udg e m i ghtha ves t r i c ke n t he j ur o r s “f o r c aus e . ” H o w e ve r , t he t r i alj udg e w as c e r t ai nly no tbo und t o e nf o r c e t he St at e ’ s c o nc e s s i o n. I d. T h e co u r t t h u s co n c lu d e dth a t t h e S ta te h a dn o t c o n c e d e dth a t S im o n s h o u ld h a v e e x t r ao rs p e c ia l f o r -c a u s e c h a ll e n g e s a n d t h a ta n yfa il u r e b yS im o n ’s
cou n sel t o inv ok e th e S tate’ s ac tu a lcon cess i on w a s n ot d efi ci en t: [W ] e concl u de that the contextof the con cess i on b y t h e State di d n ot em pow er Si m on ’ s t ri alcoun selt o au t om ati cal l y excl u de “f or c au se” al lm em ber s of

t he ve ni r e e xpos ed t o pr et r i alpubl i c i t y. Tri al c o u n se l w a s n o t d e ficien t forfailin gto r e m in dth e tria l j u d g e of a no n- bi ndi ng andune nf o r c e ab l e c o nc e s s i o n m ad e b y t he St at e i n t he cou rse o f d i scu ssingop ti on s to r em ov e th e tain t of pr etrialpu b l i ci ty f rom t h e t ri alj u rors . I d. Fi nal l y, the c our tnot ed thatSi m on c oul d nots at i sf y St r i c kland ’ s prej u di ce c o m po ne nt
. Ac c o r di ng t o t he c o ur t , Si m o n’ s c o uns e l ’ s fai l u re tos t r i ke t he cha l l en gedj u rors p erem ptoril y “i n di cat e[ d] a n on - prej u di ci alst rat egi c deci si on w a s m a d e to i n cl u d e th em on the j u rypa n el. ” I d. The di s t r i c tc o ur ta gr e e d wi t h t he Su p r e m eCour to f M i s s i s s i ppit hat“ [t] he tr a n s c r ip t o f th e p r e tr ia l h e a r in gm a k e s it c le a rth a t t h e p r o s e c u to rw a s m e r e ly assert i n g t h at t h ose j u rors t ai n t ed by pretr i al pu bl i cit y shou l d be rem ov e d f or ca u se.” S i m on I

I ( F ederalHab eas) , 200 7 W L 4 2 9 2 4 9 8, at *10. Th e court th ere fore con cl u d edtha t Sim on ’ s “[t] ri a lcou n sel w a s n ot d efi ci en t i n fa i l i n g to
rem i n d the t ri alcourtt h at th e p rosec u t or k n ew the st an da rd f or r em ovi n g j u rors for cau se.” I

d. Th e di st r i c t c our t al so f ound no pr ej udi c e, be l i evi ng t hatt he r eal i ssu e w a s “w h eth er th e j u rytha t satw a s i m p a rti a l
. ” I d. The c o ur ts aw “ noN o. 08- 70011

20 i n di cat i on t h at th e seated j u rors w ere n ot i m pa rt i al” an d d i sm i ssed an y n ot i on t h at th e use of

perem ptory c h allen g e s to rem ove cert ai n j u rors entit l ed S i m on to re lie f. I

d. S i m on does not i n di cat e w h ere i n t h e rec ord t h i s c o n cess i on t ook p l ace. B u tboth t h e Su prem e C ou rt of M i ssi ssi pp ian d the di st ri ctcourtl ooked t o a p retrial h ea ri n gw h e re S i m on an dh i s co-de fen d a n t, A n th on y C a rr, m ov edto di sm i ss t hei ri ndi c t m ent s d u e t o i m pro perpr et r i alpubl i c i t y. D uri ng t hat h e a r in g , th e t r i a l co u r t d e s c r ib e das e c tio n o f th e S ta te ’ s b r ie f w h ic h a r g u a b ly i n cl u des t h e concessi on t h at Si m on al l eges: I do u nde r s t andt hatt he St at e a dm i t s i n it s b r i e f t hato ne o f

t he r e m e di alm e as ur e s t hatm i ghtb e tak en, o n pa gef iveo f t he br i e f, [] c o uns e ls t at e s t hatj ur o r s m ay be di s m i s s e d f o rc aus e dur i ng voirdi r e i f pre - t r i al publ i c i t y has r eac hed a pr os pec t ive j uro r . That m a y m a ke i t d i f

f i c ult t hr o ugho ut , b ut I un d e r s t a nd t hat ’ s an adm i ss i on as a r em edi alm eas ure . An d, f urt heron the s am e pag e th a t ju r o r s s h o u ldb e e x c u s e dif th e r e is a n yd o u b ta b o u t t h e ir i m pa rt i al i t y, ref

erri n g t o t h e State’ s bri ef at t h i s t i m e. L a ter, i n an ex ch a n ge w i th the co u rt a b ou t a p oten ti a lch a n ge of ve n u e, th e S tate
se e m e dto c la rifyth e sta te m e n t inits b rie f: B YT H E C O U R T : A n d , I b e lie v e y o u s u g g e s te diny o u rb r ie f th a t if w e go t o an ot h er c ou n t y, an d if w e f i n d an y j u ror du ri n g voi r di re t h at th e pre- t ri alpu bl i cit y h as reached , t h at j u ror shou l d b e excused f or c au se. Th at’ s w h at your bri ef says. B Y[T H E ST A T E ] : Y ou r H on or, of course— B Y T H E C O U R T : —A n d, ot h erw i se, so w e m ay go t o t w o or th ree coun t i es. B Y[T H E ST A T E ] : Y ou r H on or, if th at j u ro r w h en qu est i on ed on vo i rdir e s ay s t hat t hatj ur o rha s b e e n c o nt am i nat e d wi t h t he v i r us an d can n otl ay asi de an ythi n g t h at th a t ju ror m ay h ave h eard or r e a d , an dh a s f

orm edan op i n i on , w ell , certa i n l y, th a t j u ror w o u ld h ave to be excused. A n d, if t h at j u ror— B YT H E C O U R T : — T hat ’ s th e nor m alt hi ng. W hatr em edi alN o. 08- 70011

21 me a s u r e s d o w e h a v e b e c a u s e o f t h i s , r e g a r d l e s s o f

h o w itc a me about ? I ’ m as ki ng c ounse lf orbo t h si des
. W hati s t he rem edy, becau se iti s out, becau se al lt h ese t h i n gs t h rough t h ese f i l i n gs of t he s e t w o r e s po ns e s , w hi c h s ho ul d ne ve rha veb e e n. ( em ph asi s add ed). R ead i n g t h ese t w o sec t i on s i n t an dem , i t ap pea rs t h at Si m on has m i s c on st r ue d the St at e ’ s a dm i s s i o n. Any c o nc e s s i o n r e ga r di ng s t r i ki ng j uro r s expo se d t o pr et r i alpubl i c i t y w as m er ely an adm i ssion of t he nor m al
s t and ar d f

o rs t r i ki ng s uc h j ur o r s . The St ate di d no ta gr e e t o ar e m e dyi n t he f or m of s t r i ki ng anyj u ror exp osed t o anypr e t r i alpub l i c i t y. I nde e d, t hr o ugh o ut i t s c l o s i ng ar gum e nt , t he St at e r e pe at e dly e m pha s i z e d thatt he pr o pe rr e m e dy f o rt he pr e t r i alpub l i c i t y w as ac hang e o f v e nue . Al t ho ught he St at e a to ne po i nt
a l s o s a i dtha t “ ex ten sive v oir dire” w ou l dbe ap p rop ri a te, S i m on po i n ts u s to
n ow h ere else i n the reco rdw h ere the S tate ind i ca tes th a t any j u ror ex p ose dto anypret ri alpu bl i cit y shou l d be str u ck f or c au se. S i m on ’ s c l ai m on thi s poi n tt h u s fai l s atst ep on e; hi s c ou n selcoul d n ot hav e r e nde r e d i ne f

f e c t ivea s s i s t anc e b y fail i ng t o i nvo ke acon cess i on t hatt he S ta te n e v e ra c tu a llym a d e . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f M is s is s ip p i co r r e c tly
a d d r e s s e dth is cla im , a n dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s re s o l u t i o n i s n o t d e b a ta b le
. W e t h e r e f o r e d e n yaCOA. D . F ai l u re t o R eh ab i l i t ate Prosp ect i ve J u rors F i n al l y, Sim on contends that hi s c ou n selprovi dedi n ef fect ive assi st an ce as t o the r ehabil i t at i on o f s eve r alpot ent i alj uro rs. D uri ng voirdi r e, s eve r al ju r o r s in d ic a t e d t h a t t h e y w o u ld r e fu s e t o v o t e fo r t h e d e a t h p e n a lt y . S im o n ’s t ri alcoun selatt em pted t o rehab i l i t ate a partic ul arj ur or w h o ha d exp ress ed su ch a ref u sal
. A f

t er Si m on ’ s c ou n sela skedthis j u ror w h et h er s h e coul d “c on si der” i m p osin g th e d ea th pe n a l ty e v e n t h o u gh sh e d i dn ot be l i ev e in it , the S tate
o bj e c t e d t o c o uns e l ’ s us e o f t he w o r d “c o ns i de r . ” The t ri alj u dg e s us t ai ne d the
o bj e c t i o n, no t i ng t hatt he sub s t anc e of t he que s t i o n had al r e ad y be e n a s ke d a ndN o. 08- 70011

22 ans w e r e d thr e e t i m e s . Si m o n’ s t r i alc o uns e lt he n m o ve d o n t o q ue s t i o ni ng t he veni r e aboutex pos ure t o pr et r i alpubl i c i t y. S i mo n r a i s e s t h r e e i s s u e s s t e mmi n g f r o m t h i s e f

f o r ta tr e h a b i l i t a t i o n . H e first arg u es th a t his cou n sel ren d ere di n effective a ssistan ce b y n ot o bj ectingto bei n g “ cut of

f ” or n otaski n g t h e sam e qu est i on of ot h er j u rors w h o ha d exp ress ed
a r e l uc t anc e t o i m po s e t he de at h pe nalt y. Se c o nd, Si m o n c o nt e nds t h at af t er th ese j u rors h a dbe en stru ckf or ca u se b eca u se h i s cou n sel ha don l y p a rti a lly
r e hab i l i t at e d t he m , hi s c o uns e l r e nde r e d i ne f fe c t ivea s s i s t anc e b y no tpo i nt i ng outt o th e tri a lj udge t hathe had c uts hor tef f or t s atr ehabil i t at i on. Fi nal l y, S i m on asser t s th a t t h e State w as al l ow ed to reha bi l i t ate j u rors t h at Si m on w i shedt o st rike f

or c au se, an d hi s coun sel rend ered i n ef fect ive assi st an ce by not
o bj e c t i ng t o t he t r i alc o ur t ’ s di s pa r at e a l l o w anc e o f r e hab i l i t at i o n. 1 . Fa ilu re to o b

jec t w h en “c u t off” A s t o Si m on’ s f

i r stclaim , h e s ugges t s t hathi s c ounse ls houl d have p ersistedi n qu estion i n g p oten ti a lj u rors ab ou t th eir v i ew s on the de a thpe n a l ty or obj ect ed to t h e t ri al j u dg e’ s “cutt i n g of f ” hi s opportun i t y t o rehab i l i t ate j u rors w i t h b e l i e fs a ga i ns tt he dea t h pen alt y. Si m o n no t e s t hatf ivej ur o r s w ho m t he St at e l at erc hal l enged d u e t o thei rr ef usalt o i m pos e the dea t h penal t y had in d ic a te dth a tt h e yco u ldfo llo w th e co u r t’s in s tr u c tio n s a n dd e te r m in e g u ilt
w i t ho utr e ga r d t o t he i r vi ew s o n t he de at h pe nalt y: Et hr i dg e , Cr ai ge n, D i ckerson, T i n n el l , an d W i l l i am s. Si m on sugg est s t h at th ese j u rors w ere pa rt i al l y reha bi l i t ated an d that hi s t ri alcoun sel sh o u l d h ave con t i n u ed att em pti n g t o reh a b ili t ate th em . H e contends that c ou n sel ’ s fai l u re t o do so resul t ed i n f

ive j u rors bei n g n eedl essly st ruck forcause. The Supr e m e Cour to f M i s s i s s ip p ir ej e c t e d thi s c l ai m , no t i ng t hatt he i s s ue S i m on sugg est s hi s c ou n selshou ldh a v e conti n u ed to pu rsue— w h et h er th ose prospective j u rors coul d eve r im pose t h e death p en al t y— “h adi n deed beenN o. 08- 70011

23 covered severalt i m es by t h e t ri alC ou rt , t h e State, andSim on ’ s t ri alcoun sel b e fo r e ” c o u n s e l w a s cu t o ff. S ee S im o n I I (S t ateHab eas) , 857 So. 2d at693. M oreover, t h e j u rors w h o Sim on argu es h i s coun sel shou l d h ave qu est i on ed w ere a l l “straigh tf

orw a rd a n d u n w a ve ri n g i n th eir op p ositi on to i m p osin g th e d ea th p en a l ty. ” I

d. T h u s , a c c o r d in gto th e co u r t, “t h e [tr ia l] ju d g e d idn o t e r rin
c ut t i ngo ff

S i m on’ s t r i alc ounse l ’ s l as tat t em ptt o r ehabil i t at e them , norw as cou n sel’ s as sist a n ce d efi ci en t f or faili n g to ob j ect to this pre em p ti on . ” I d. The di s t r i c tc o ur ta gr e e d w i t h t he Supr e m e Cour to f M i s s i s s i ppi , s t at i ng th a t t h e r e c o r dd idn o t s u p p o r t S im o n ’ s co n te n tio n s . Se eSi m o n I I ( Fe de r al Hab eas) , 2007 W L 4292498, at*1 2. Indee d, the di st r i c tcour tf ound Si m on t o b e

“ t a k [i n g] l ib e r t ie s w it h th e fa c t s o f t h e c a s e b yc h a r a c t e r iz in gth e tr ia l c o u r t ’s stat e m e n ts a s i m p ed i n g h i s op p ortu n i ty to reh a b i l i tate p oten ti a lj u rors . ” I d. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t th u s fo u n d it re a s o n a b le fo rS im o n ’ s tr ia l co u n s e l to ce a s e th is l i ne o f ques t i oni ng. W e dono tf

i nd thedi s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r e s o l ut i o n o f t hi s i s s ue deb at ab l e . The p e r tin en t i ssu e— w h eth er p a rti cu l a r j u rors w ou l drefu se to im p ose the de a th pen al t y— h adt w i ce been covered befor e Sim on ’ s t ri alcoun selbegan hi s voir di re. Fi r s t , dur i ng t he c o ur t ’ s v o i rdir e , t he tr i alj udg e a s ke d the v e ni r e pe r s o ns w het hert hey w oul d be abl e t o i m pos e as ent enc e o f death. Seve r al
u n equ ivocal l y i n di cat ed that t h ey w ere n ot
. La t er, du ri n g t h e State’ s voi r di re, c o u n s e l fo rth e S ta te tw ic e a s k e dth e ju r o r s w h e th e rth e yh a dch a n g e dth e ir
m i n d ab ou t t h ei r st ated i n abili t y t o ret u rn a sen t en ce of death w i t h no respon se. T h e S t ate al so asked w h et h er any on e (besi des t h ose w h o ha d i n di cat ed earl i er)
cou l dn ot i m p ose a sen ten ce of de a th , an don e j u ror re sp on d edtha t sh e cou l dn ot. W he n Si m o n’ s t r i alc o uns e lb e ga n di s c us s i ng t he i s s ue , he f i r s ta s ke d who
on t h e ven ire d idn otbel i eve i n t h e death p en al t y. A f t er r ou gh l y a dozen
a ffir m a tiv e re s p o n s e s , co u n s e l th e n a s k e d w h e th e r th o s e w h o d idn o t b e lie v e inN o. 08- 70011

24 t h e death p en al t y coul d f ol l ow the j u dg e’ s i n st ructi on s and deci de gu i l tor i n n ocence regardl ess of t h ei r f eel i n gs a bou tthe dea t h p en al t y. C ou n selrec eived
va r yi ng ans w e r s , s o m e y e s , s o m e no , s o m e no tkno w i ng. Couns e lt he n a s ke d the j u rors w h et h er th ey u n derst ood t h at a cros s sect i on of the com m u n i t y i n cl u des p e o p le w h o d o n o t b e lie v e inth e d e a th p e n a lty
. T h e S t a te o bje c te dto th is que s t i o n, a nd the t r i alj udg e s us t ai ne d the o bj e c t i o n. Si m on ’ s t r i alc o uns e lt he n a t t e m pt e d t o r e s t at e t he q ue s t i o n t o o ne pa rt i cul ar j u ror: N o w , t ho s e pe o pl e t hatIj us ta s ke d about the d eat h pe nalt y, t he on es w h o do n ot b e li e v e i n t h e death p en al t y, if you ’ re s el ect ed on t h e j u ry, ev en thou gh y ou d o n otb el i eve i n t h e death p en al t y— M s. E t h r id g e , c o u ldy o u fo ll o w t h e la w a n dc o n s id e rw h e t h e ro rn o tit ’s a p p rop ri a te or n ot, ev en tho u gh yo u do n ’ t beli ev e in it
. T h e State obj ect ed t o t h i s qu est i on , noti n g t h at “t h e w ord ‘ consi der’i s not a pa rt
o f it.” T h e co u r t t h e n s u s ta in e dth e o bje c tio nind e ta il: JU D G E P EA RSO N : The q ue s t i o n ha s b e e n a s ke d abo utt hr ee di f ferent w ays. M R. W AL LS [ Si m o n’ s t r i alcou n s e l] : Yo urH o no r , t hat ’ s t he qu est i on Iw an t ed to pose to a llth o se other j u rors . H as t h e C ou rt r ul e d Is ho ul dn’ ta s k t hatq ue s t i o n? JU D G E P E A R S O N : T h e C ou rtha s asked thi s questi on , M r. W al l s, and t hi s i s t he t hi r d di f fer entw a y t hatyo u’ve as ked t he s am e que s t i o n. I ’ m s us t ai ni ng t he o bj e c t i o n. M R
. W A L L S : A l lri gh t. I h a ve on e o th e ra rea , tw o q u i ck l y th a t I w a n t t o g o in to
. . . . Si m on’ s t r i alc ounse lt hen w ent on t o as k t he venir epe r so ns aboutw hatt hey had h eard regarding the case. U ndert hes e c i r c um st ance s, itw as notunre as onabl e fo rSi m on’ s t r i al
c o uns e lt o c e as e hi s e f f o r t s a tr e hab i l i t at i o n. The s ubs t anc e o f t he pe r t i ne nt ques t i on— w het herj uro r s w oul d r ef use t o r et urn a s en te nce of death— hadN o. 08- 70011

25 alr e ad y be e n c o ve r e d. I tw as r e as o nab l e f o rc o uns elto m ove o n t o adif fe r e nt i ssue. H adSim o n ’ s trialcoun selpersi st ed i n t h e above-quoted l i n e of ques t i oni ng, he li k ely w ou l d have dra w n addi t i onalobj ec t i ons t hatt he t r i al j u dg e w ou l d h ave sustai n ed. Inst eadof an t agon i zi n g t h e t ri alj u dg e i n f ront of po t e nt i alj ur o r s , c o uns e lr e as o nab l y de c i de d t o m o veo n. F u rth er, e v e n if S i m on ’ s tri a lcou n sel cou l dh a ve tri edto reh a b i l i tate
s e v e r a l o f th e ju r o r s , h is fa ilu r e to d o s o w a s n o t d e fic ie n t p e r fo r m a n c e . A p oten ti a lj u ror ca n be ex cu sed for ca u se if h i s or he r view s on the de a thpe n a l ty
w ou ldp revent or sub st an t i al l y i m pa i r th e perf orm an ce of

hi s orher du t i es. W a in w rig h t v. Witt , 4 6 9 U .S . 4 1 2 , 4 2 4 (1 9 8 5 ); Wi l l i am s v . Col l i ns , 16 F. 3d 626, 633 (5t h C i r. 199 4)

. Aj u ror w h ose vi ew s on t h e death p en al t y preven thi m or h e rfr o m re tu r n in gas e n te n c e o f d e a th is th e r e fo r e e x c u s a b le fo rca u s e . S ee Wi l l i a ms , 16 F. 3d at 633. A nd w her e at t em pt s t o re habi l i t at e a j uro rw ho has ref u sed t o i m po s e t he de at h pe nalt y w o ul d b e f ut i l e , r e f

us alt o e nga gei n such
us e l e s s e f

f o r t s r ar e l y c o ns t i t ut e s de f i c i e ntpe r f

o r m anc e und er St r i c kland

. S ee i d. O u rre v ie w o f t h e re c o r dre v e a ls th a t fo u ro f th e fiv e ju r o r s in ques t i on— E t hri dge, C r ai gen, D i c ker so n, an d Ti nnel l

— sq uare l y i ndi c at ed that th e y c o u ld n o t re tu r n a s e n te n c e o f d e a th
. E ffo r ts to r e h a b ilita te th e m w o u ld h ave been f

rui t l ess, an d t h e p erf orm an ce of

Sim on ’ s t ri alcoun selw as t h eref ore
n ot d efi ci en t. The f i f t h po t e nt i alj ur o r , W i l l i am s , i s a bi tl e s s cl e ar . W e c o ul d o nl y f i nd evi den ce th at W i l l i am s d i d n ot“bel i eve” i n the dea t h p en al t y. B u tw e neednot
a d d r e s s w h e t h e rc o u n s e lw a s d e f i c i e n tr e g a r d i n gWi l l i a ms ; e v e n if w e a s s u me d e f i c i e n tp e r f

o r ma n c e , S i mo n c a n n o ts h o w t h a tt h e e x c l u s i o n o f Wi l l i a ms prej udi c ed hi s t r i al
. Th e j ury i n Si m on’ s t r i alw as s el ec t ed f r om t he f

i r stf or t yf ourm em ber s of

t he veni r e, w i t h t hre e al t er nat es sel ec t ed f r om the f

i r stf i f t y- six. W i l l i am s w as j uro rnum bers eve nt y- t w o. Thu s, ev en if Si m on’ s t r i alc ounse lhadN o. 08- 70011

26 f u l l y reha bi l i t ated her, she w ou l d n otha ve been on the j u ry tha th eard h i s c ase. Any fail ur e t o r e hab i l i t at e W i l l i am s , t he n, c o ul d no tha vepr ej udi c e d Si m o n. 2. Fail u re t o obj ectt o S t ate’ s f or- cau secha l l eng es The St at e l at e rc hall e nge d the f iveabo ve - m e nt i o ne d j ur o r s f o rc aus e , a nd t he t r i alj udge e xc use d al lf ive due t o thei rr ef

usalt o i m pos e the dea t h penal t y. Si m on cont ends t hath i s c ounse lshoul d h ave poi nt ed o utt o the t r i alj udge t hat h i s ef f ort s to reha bi l i t ate th ese j u rors w ere c u tof f, an d the fai l u re t o do so
am ou n t ed to i n ef

fect ive assi st an ce. The Supr e m e Cour to f M i s s i s s i ppihe l d thatitw as no tde f i c i e nt per f or m ance f

orSi m on’ s c ounse lnott o o bj ec tw hen t he t r i alj udge s t at ed that j u r o r s s tr u c kfo rca u s e w e r e o n lyp a r tia llyre h a b ilita te d
. S ee S i m on I I ( S ta te Hab eas) , 857 So. 2 d a t 6 9 3
. A s “t h ese j u rors di d n otfal t er i n t h ei r s t ated
o ppo s i t i o n t o i m po s i ng t he de at h pe nalt y, ” t he y c o ul d b e s t r i c ke n f o rc aus e a nd anyc ut t i ng s ho r to f

t r i alc o uns e l ’ s q ue s t i o ni ng “hadl i t t l e , if any, e f fe c tupo n t he
a d eq u a cyof th eir voir dire. ” I d. Thu s, ac c or di ng t o the c ourt, S i m on’ s t r i al

“ c ounse ldi d notr enderdef i c i entperf

or m ancei n fai l i ng t o r em i nd t he j udge t hat h e ha d b ee n cu t of

f i n h i s f

u til e a ttem p ts t o reh a b i l i tate th ese j u rors . ” I d. The di st r i c tc our tagr ee d, s t a ti ng t hatea c h of t he j uro r s i n ques t i on w er e unequivoc al in th e irin a b ilityto im p o s e th e d e a th p e n a lty
. S ee S i m on I I ( F ederalHab eas) , 2 0 0 7 W L 42 9 2 4 9 8 , at *1 2
. T h e d i stri ct cou rt also n oted tha t, i n ad d i ti on to W i l l i am s , pot e nt i alj ur o r s C r ai ge n, D i c ke r s o n, a nd Ti nne l la l s o w e r e no ta m o ng t h e f i rstf ort y- f ou r veni re m em bers an d t h eref ore “w ou l d n otha ve been reached
ev en if th eyh a drem a i n edon the pa n el. ” I d. W e do n otf

i n d the di st rict co u rt ’ s r esol u t i on of t h i s i ssue deb atabl e. A gain, f ou r of t h e f

ive potenti al j u rors i n qu est i on ha d squ arel y st ated t h at th ey w ou l d refu se t o i m p ose th e dea th p en a l ty. A n y f u rth er ef

forts to re h a b i l i tate t h em w ou l d h ave been f rui t l ess, an d S i m on ’ s t ri a l co u n selw as t h eref ore notN o. 08- 70011

27 defi ci en ti n fai l i n g t o poi n tout t h at hi s ef f ort s atrehab i l i t ati n g t h em ha d been cut s h ort
. A n d as to W i l l i am s, an y fai l u re t o reha bi l i t ate h er di d not prej u di ce Si m o n. 3. Fa i l uret o o bj e ctto d is pa r ateo

pp or t un i t i e sf

orre habi l i t at i on Si m o n’ s t r i alc o uns e lc hall e nged sever alj ur o r s f o rc aus e o n t he g r o und t hatt hey had s ai d t hey w oul d aut om at i c al l y i m pos e t he deat h penal t y. The t r i al j u dg e gave the S t ate th e opp ort u n i t y t o reha bi l i t ate som e of t h ese j u rors . Si m on agai n co nt ends t hath i s t r i alc ounse ls houl d have poi nt ed o utt hatt he t r i alj udge h adcut sh o rt hi s ef

f ort s atrehab i l i t ati n g j u rors , an d that hi s fai l u re t o do so constit u t ed i n ef

fect ive assi st an ce. Th e Supre m e C ou r tof M i ss i ss i ppif

ound no def

i c i enc y i n Si m on’ s t r i al
coun sel ’ s perf

orm an ce on t h i s m att er. I n t h e court ’ s w ords, T h e rec ord ref

l ect s th at duri n g t h e t i m e j u rors w ere bei n g st ri cken
“f or c au se, ” w h ere th e j u dg e’ s notes w ere i n ad equ ate, i n com pl et e, or w her e he c ons i der ed them unt r ust w or t hy, he w oul d per m i tan i ndivi dua lv o i rdir e o f t hatj ur o rt o c l e art hi ngs u p. N o o bj e c t i o ns w ere m a d e to th i s p roce d u re b y e i th er p a rty. Itbe n e fit tedbo th s id e s . T h a t S im o n ’s t r ia l co u n s e l d id n o t o bje c t t o t h e ju d g e ’s al l ow i ng i ndivi d u a lv oirdi r e o f j uro r s— w her e the St at e w as s uc c e s s f uli n c l ar i f

yi n g t he j udg e ’ s pe r c e pt i o n o f t ho s e j ur o r s i n a w ayt hatpo ssibl y c o ul d b e c har ac t e r i z e d a s fav o r ab l e t o t he S t ate— w as not t h e provi si on of def i ci en tassi st an ce. S ee S i m on I

I ( S t ateHab eas) , 8 5 7 S o . 2 da t 6 9 3
. T h e d i s t r ic t c o u r t s im ila r ly fou n dn o m erit to S im on ’ s all eg a ti on s of de fici en t pe rform a n ce w h en the S tate
w as al l ow ed to reha bi l i t ate pot en t i alj u rors , as bot h t h e State an d d efen se w ere a llo w e d to c o n d u c t in d iv id u a l v o ird ir e . S ee S i m on II ( F ederalHab eas) , 2 0 0 7 WL 4292498, at*1 2. A gain, w e do n otf

i n d the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s resol u t i on of t h i s i ssue deb atabl e. T h e rec ord sh ow s th a t cou n sel f or th e S tate a n dS i m on ’ s tri a lcou n sel w ere bo th give n the op p ortu n i ty to qu estion j u rors w h en the re w a s som e con fusion as toN o. 08- 70011

28 w hatt he j u r o r h a d s a i d
. Fu r t h e r , a s t o f o u r o f t h e f

iv e j u r o r s i n q u e s t i o n , a ny eff ort at reh a b i l i tati on w ou l dh a ve be en f ru i tl ess . A n dan y fail u re to reh a b i l i tate W i l l i am s w as ha rm l ess. I n s u m , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r th e ldth a tth e S u p r e m e C o u r to f M is s is s ip p i’s
r es ol ut i on of

S i m on’ s i nef

fec t ive as si st ancec l ai m s r egar di ng r ehabil i t at i on w as p r o p e r . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e i s n o td e b a t a b l e , a n dwe t h e r e f o r e d e n yaC O Ao n t h i s c l a i m. IV . C ONC L US I ON W e gr anta CO Aon Si m on’ s c l ai m t hat h i s c ounse lr ender ed i nef fec t ive as s i s t anc e a ts e nt e nc i ng. W e re que s tt hatSi m o n pr o vi de s upp l e m e nt alb r i e f i ng o n th is cla im w ith in t h ir tyd a y s o f th e d a te o f th is o r d e r . T h e S ta te s h o u ldfile a respon se w i t h i n f

i f t een day s t h ereaf

t er, an d S i m on m ay f i l e a repl y w i t h i n t en da ys a f t e rt he St at e s ubm i t s it s b r i e f

. W e a s k t hatthe pa rt i e s a ddr e s s t he f ol l ow i n g i ssues: 1. U n der St r i c kland , w as i t defi ci en t perf orm an ce f

or Si m on ’ s t ri alcoun sel
n ott o i n vest i gate Si m on ’ s hi st ory of fam i l i alabu se? 2. If t h e j u ry h ad h eard evi den ce of Sim on ’ s hi st ory of

fam i l i alabu se, i s t h ere a reaso n a bl e probab i l i t y t h at itw ou l d n otha ve ret u rneda sentence of de at h? 3. C on si deri n g t h at n ei t h er th e Su prem e C ou rtof M i ssi ssi pp inor t h e di st ri ct court h el d an evi den t i ary h eari n g t o d e te rm ine the act u alcontours of Si m o n’ s t r i a lc o u n s e l ’ s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , wh a tmus twe a s s u m e f o rt h e s ak e of t hi s a ppe al ? Fur t he r , if w e f i nd Si m o n’ s c l ai m s t o b e m e r i t ori ou s, shou l d w e rem an d h i s pet i t i on t o t h e di st ri ctcou rtf or an evi den t i ary hear i ng? W e de ny Si m on’ s r eques tf ora C O Ao n h i s r em ai ni ng c l ai m s of i nef fec t ive as s i s t anc e . The c e r t if i c at e o f a ppe al ab i l i t y i s t he r e f o r e G RA N TE D i n pa r ta ndN o. 08- 70011

29 D EN I ED i n pa r t , a nd a ddit i o nalb r i e f i ng i s r e que s t e d. G RA N TE D i n pa r t , D EN I ED i n pa r t , a ddit i o nalb r i e f i ng r e que s t e d.