F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jan uary20 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1191 1
D. C. Docket N o. 00-03608 -CV -J-S AA RONLE E JO NE S, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant,
ve rs us DO NA L C AMP BE LL , C omm issio ner, A la ba m a D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, Respondent -Appellee.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma (J anua ry 20, 200 6)

Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. DU BIN A, Circuit Judge:2

A n A la ba m a j ur y f ound pe tit ion er

A ar on L ee Jon es ( “ Jone s” ) gui lty of
ca pit al m ur de r an d r ec om

m en de d th at

he be se nte nc ed

to de ath. A ft er

e xhaust ing his state c ourt r em ed ie s, Jon es f ile d af ed er al ha be as c or pus pe tit ionpur suant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d Jo ne s’ s ha be as pe tit ion , but

gr an te d a
ce rt if ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

( “ CO A ”) on s ev er al c la im s of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of counsel. A fter a

thoroug h reviewof the rec ord, and having the benefit of oral
ar gum en t and the part ie s’ br ie fs , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t de ny ing Jones habeas relief.

I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac ts T he f ac ts are r ec ite d ve rb at im

f ro m the opi nio n of

the A la ba m a Co urt of Crim inal Appeals on direct appeal fr om Jones’s c onvi ction and sent ence. T ony N el son te sti fi ed

tha t onthe m or

nin g of N ove m be r 10, 197 8, he w as sle ep ing w ithhis te n- y ear- old br oth er , Ch ar lie , in one of the be dr oom s of

his pare nts ’ hom e in the Ro sac om m uni ty in rura l B lou nt Co unty , A la

ba m a. H is thirte en -y ear- old sis te r, Br en da , w as sle ep ing wit h t he ir p aren ts , W il le ne an d C arl Nels on , in an ot he r be dr oo m . T ony ’ s gr an dm oth er

w as sle ep ing by

he rs el f in a

thi rd be dr oom of the hom e. At 3 :2 7 a .m . Ton y

was a wak en edby a dis tu rb an ce i ns id e th e h om e. When the ligh t in his b edroom wa s turned on, he saw Arthur Lee G ile s, af orm er e m plo y ee of his f athe r, standi ng i n th e door w ay of3

Ton y ’s bed ro om . Ton y ’s fat he r ap pe ared an d a sk edGil es to lea ve . Tony got ou t of bed and followed Giles to m ake sure G iles left as directed. A s Tony

stepped ou t the back door of the hom e G iles shou te d “ he re , ” an d sh ot h im tw ic e, onc e in the ne ck

a nd o nc e in the chest. G iles, then, re-e ntered the N elsons’ hom e. T ony m ade an effo rt t o g o a nd ge t a g un , bu t was un ab le to do so du e to hi s i nju rie s. I n s t e a d , h e c r a w l e dt o , a n dh i du n d e r , h i s f a t h e r ’s t r u c k
. S h o rt l y, th erea fte r, he he ardGil es an d a no th er m an ex it hi s p aren ts ’ ho m e. He saw the m en only

from the wa ist down. H e hear d one of them say tha t the y ne ed ed to fi nd T ony

a nd tha t the oth er

m ansho uld

“ ge t the m one y . ” A ft er

the y le ft , T ony

w en t ba ck

ins ide
. I n hi s pare nts ’ be dr oo m he fou nd hi s m ot he r, hi s fa th er, h is si st er, an d h is bro th er. All four had been sever ely wounded and there wa s bloo d all over them
. Charlie and Br enda responded when Tony asked if any one was sti ll al ive
. H is p ar en ts w er e de ad
. T ony r ushe d B re ndaa nd C ha rl ie to the hos pit al w he re a ll thr ee , inc lud ing T ony , w er e tr ea te d f or the ir w ound s. Charlie N elson testified that he saw G iles when his father, Car l Ne lson, asked Giles to leave the hom e. H e sawTony leave and hear d t wo g u n s h o t s . Gi l es , t h en , r ea p p ea re dan ds h o tCh ar l i e’s gr an dm ot he r, who was s ta nd in g i n t he do or way to Ch arl ie ’s bed ro om . G ile s pr oc ee de d to Ch ar lie ’ s pare nts ’ be dr oom f ro m w he re Ch ar lie he ar d m or e guns hot s. C ha rl ie r anto his pare nts ’ be dr oom , w he re he saw G iles and anoth er m an, whom he positiv ely

identified at trial as the appellant. H e re alized that his m other, his father and his sis ter ha d a ll be ensho t. H e j um pe d ontop of

his sis te r to p ro te ct

he r fr om further har

m . As he lay

there, he sawthe appellant stab his m other and father w ith a knife. H is m other and father w ere both m oaning as the appe llant r ep ea te dly

sta bbe d th em . T he appe llant t ur ne d and sta bbe d C ha rl ie ’ s si ste r Br en da , w ho h ad a lr ea dy be ensho t a

bove one ey e. C ha rl ie w as hit

in the he ad

se ve ra l t im es , a ft er

w hic h th e ap pe llant s ta

bbe d hi m tw ic e in the ba ck
. O n c ro ss- ex am ina tio n C ha rl ie a dm itt ed tha t duri ng a

ppe llant’ s f

ir st tr ia l C ha rl ie ha d st at ed

tha t G ile s and the appe llant a ppe ar ed to be4

dr unk. H e al so s ta te d th at

G ile s “ or de re d th e ap pe llant aro und” a nd dir ec te d th e ap pe llant t o st ab his vic tim s. Br en d a N el s o n co n fi rmedt h o s e p ar t s o f T o n y’ s an dCh ar l i e’s te sti m ony a s to thi ngs she ha d w itn es se d. S he ide nti fi ed the appe llant at trial as the m an she saw r epeatedly stabbing her m other. S he stated tha t G ile s w as the one tha t sh ot h er , Br en da , in the he ad
. Dr . Joseph Em

bry of the A labam a D epartm ent of Forensic Sc ience testified that W illene Nelson died from m ultip le stab wounds that dam aged her hear

t, lungs, and kidney s. H er body rec eived 29 kn ife w ound s ( 17 s ta

b w ound s and 1 2 sl as h w ound s) , num er ous la ce ratio ns an d a br as ion s a

bout the he ad f ro m ablunt i nstru m en t, a nd o ne guns hot wound to the left should er. D r. Em bry testified that Carl Nels on di edfro m

a co m bi na ti on of g un sh otwou nd s an d s tab wo un ds
. He wa s shot once through the heart and on ce in the left arm . He wa s sta bbe d, appr oxi m at el y , e igh t t im es , inc lud ing asta b w ound in the ne ck w hic h se ve re d hi s sp ina l c or d. H e al so r ec ei ve d nu m er ous blu nt instrum ent abrasions abou t the head. D r. Em bry testified that Carl N el son w as a liv e w he n he w as sta bbe d inthe ne ck
. Bi l l y Ir v i n , a n i n v es t i g at o r w i t h t h e B l o u n tCo u n t y Sh er i ff ’s D ep ar tm en t, te sti fi ed

tha t he int er

vie w ed the appe llant a t 8: 15 a
. m . on N ove m be r 11, 197 8. D ur ing thi s in te rr oga tio n th e ap pe llant co nf es se d to his part ic ipa tio n inthe e ve nts a t the N el sons ’ hom e the pr ev iou s ni ght
. Appe llant’ s c onf es sio n w as ta

pe r ec or de d and tr an sc ri be d. T he appe llant r ev ie w ed the tr an sc ri pt o f his c onf es sio n an d si gne d it , vol unt ar ily
. A ft er the tr ia l c ourt c ondu ct ed ahe ar ing a n dd e t e rmi n e dt h a tap p e l l a n t ’s c o n f e s s i o n wa s , i n d e e d , v o l u n t a ry, I rv i n wa s p e rmi t t e dt o r e a di tt o t h e ju ry. In appellant’ s statem ent, he a dm itted participating in the activities tha t r es ult ed

in the de aths o f W ill en e an d C ar l N el son. A cc or din g to the appellant, although they never found any

m oney , he and Giles w en t t o th e N el sons ’ hom e to r ob C ar l N el son. G ile s ha d to ld the appellant that Carl N elson had n ot sufficiently paid Giles for work Giles had done for N elson in th e past. Giles and the appellant had5

be en dri nk in g ru m

an d b eer p rio r to th ei r tr ip to th e Nel so n’s h om e. T he y w er e both arm ed

w ith
. 32 c al ibe r pis tol s, but appe llant’ s pi sto l wou ld no t fi re at th e Nel so ns ’ ho m e b ecau se he lo st th e fi rin g p in
. T he appe llant’ s st at em en t c onf irm ed the gr ue som e de ta ils of

the at ta ck on the N el son fam ily
. H e sta te d th at by the ti m e he e nte re d th e ba ck be dr oom , G ile s ha d a lr ea dy sho t and s ta

bbe d “ ev er

y one . ” I n hi s ow n w or ds the appe llant s ta te d:

“ I goe s of f in the oth er

r oom w he re he [ G ile s] a t .
. . sho t an d st ab be d th em

a ll the re , y ou know , the kid s and .
. . he loo ks a t m e an d te lls m e, y ou know , tha t I ha d to do som ethin g and I tol d hi m tha t I didn’ t have akni fe so h e ga ve m e one a nd I c ut the m oth er a nd anothe r m ana nd cu t t he bo y

an d t ha t’s al l I d id .” The a ppellant further stated that he used a butcher knife that Giles ha d, appare ntl y , obt ai ne d f ro m ins ide the N el sons ’ hom e. H e al so said that the “ little girl” at one point begged him not to d o it, and that the “ w om an ” m ove d r igh t be fo re he sta bbe d he r. T he appe llant ex pla ine d th at

w he n he sta

bbe d th e “ w om an ” he “ re al ly w as j ust so g o n e , I ju s tc l o s e dmy

e ye s ” a n ds t ab b e dwi l d l y. A lth oughhis c onf

es sio n w as a dm itt ed

int o e vid en ce , the appe llant d id not te sti fy in his ow n be ha lf

a t tri al , e xc ep t duri ng the sup pr es sio n hearing on the iss ue of the volun tariness of his confession
. In de fe nse , he pr es en te d e xc er pts of the tr an sc ri be d te sti m ony , f ro m his fir st tri al , of s ev eral st at e’s wit ne ss es forim pe ach m en t p ur

po se s. He also presented his alleged accom plice, A rthur Le e G iles, w ho inv oked h i s Fi ft h Am en d m en tri g h t s , a n dre fu s ed t o t es t i fy. Ap p el l an t ’s the or y in de fe nse w as tha t hi s part ic ipa tio n inthe double m ur de r fe ll short of capital m

urder beca

use Giles did all the actual killing and he, the appe llant, onl y

did w ha t G ile s in str

uc te d hi m to do. T he j ur y f ound the appe llant “ gui lty

a s c ha rg ed

in the ind ic tm en t” a nd the tr ia l c ourt, in ac co rd an ce w iththe j ur y ’ s r ec om m en da tio n, se nte nc ed the appe llant t o de ath by e le ctro cu tio n.6

Jo nes v . Sta te , 520 So. 2d 54 3, 545-46 (App. C rim . App. 1984). B. P roc ed

ural H ist ory In 1979, an Alabam a j ury found Jo nes guilt y

of m urder m ade capital be ca use tw o or

m or e hum anbe ing s w er e int en tio na lly kil le d by one or ase ri es of act s. See Ala . C ode § 13-11 -2(a) (10) (1979) (repea led in 198 1). The j ury
re co m m en d ed a d ea t h s en t en ce , a n dt h e ju d g e a g re ed wi t h t h e ju ry’s
recom m endation. The Alabam a Court of Cr im inal Appeals rever sed the trial
co urt’ s j udgm en t and o rd er ed ane w tr ia l purs ua nt t o Beck v. Al ab ama , 447 U. S. 625, 100 S
. Ct
. 238 2 ( 1980 ), a nd R itt er v . Sta te , 40 3 S o. 2 d 1 54 (Ala . 19 81 ). See Jo nes v . Sta te , 403 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim . A pp. 1981). Following a retria l in 1982 , a j ury again found Jones guilt y of capital m

urder
an dre co m

m en d ed t h at h e b e s en t en ce dt o d ea t h
. Th e t ri al co u rt fo l l o we dt h e ju ry’s
re co m m en da tio n and s en te nc ed Jon es to de ath. O n a

ppe al , the A la

ba m a Co urt of Cri m ina l Appe al s r em an de d Jo ne s’ s c as e fo r the tr ia l c ourt t o c lari fy it s se nte nc ing order re garding the m itigatin g and a ggravating circum stances. F ollowing th is lim ited
re m an d, the A la

ba m a Co urt of

Cr im ina l Appe al s a ff

irm ed Jon es ’ s c on victi on and de at h s en te nc e. Se e Jo nes v . Sta te , 520 S o. 2 d 54 3 (Ala
. Cr im
. App. 198 4)
. T he Alab am a Supr em e Co ur t af fir m ed , see E

x parte Jones , 520 So. 2d 55 3 (Ala . 1988),
an d t he Uni ted S ta te s S upr em e Co urt de nie d ce rti orar i rev ie w. See Jones v. Ala ba ma , 48 8 U.S. 8 71 , 10 9 S . Ct. 1 82 (19 88 ).7

InMarc h 19 90, J o ne s f

ile d ape tit ionf

or pos t- co nvi ct ionr el ie f pur suant t o R ule 32, A la
. R. Cr im
. P
. , c ha lle ngin g hi s 1982 c onvi ct iona nd s en te nc e. I n M ay 199 4, Jone s f ile d an a m en de d Ru le 32 p et iti on, r ei te ratin g nu m er ous cl ai m s of ine ff ec tiv e
as sis tanc e of co unse l all eg ed in h is o ri gin al Ru le 32 p et iti on, a nd r ai sin g nu m er ous other claim s for re lief. In Novem ber 1995 , the trial court conducted an evidentiary he ar ing on J one s’ s a lle ga tio ns o f ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of co unse l. I n M ar ch199 6, Jone s su bm itt ed se ve ra l doc um en ts t o su ppor t the a lle ga tio ns i n hi s R

ule 32 m oti on;
n a mel y, a f

f i d a v i t s o r d e p o s i t i o n s f

r o m Dr
. B
. E. B l a n k e n s h i p , D r . R i c h a r dC o o k s e y,
an d D r. Ja m es C. T hom pson , w ho t es tif

ie d r eg ardi ng Jone s’ s m en ta l he al th and ch ildhood
. I n June 199 6, the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d an or de r de ny ing Jon es pos tco nv ic ti on rel ie f. InJanuary

19 97 , J ones p et iti one d th e tr ia l c ourt t o su ppl em en t the r ec or d on ap pe al w itha n a ff

idavit of D r. Dav e D av is, a nd the de posi tio n of D r. S co tt Jos ep h. Jones stated th at he filed courtesy copies of these two docum ents with the trial court in M ar ch199 6, but

the se doc um en ts w er e not pa rt of the cl er k’ s re co rd
. D r. D av is,
a psy ch ia tr ist , dia gnos ed

Jon es a s su ff

er ing from

paranoi d sc hiz ophr en ia
. H e al so opi ne d th at

Jon es w as in a sta te of

tox ic psy ch osi s onthe nig ht of the m ur de rs , a nd due to thi s, Jon es w oul d have be enuna ble to fo rm

the ne ce ssary

int en t to com

m it the
cr im es . R
. S upp. V ol. 3, p. 616- 18. D r. Jos ep h, apsy ch ia tr ist , state d inhis de posi tio n tha t Jo ne s ha d ahis tor

y of psy ch osi s and w as ta kin g H al dol to co ntr ol h is p sy ch oti c8

s ymp t o ms . R
. S up p . V o l
. 2 , p . 3 8 4
. H o w e v e r , D r . J o s e p h a d mi t t e d t h a ta tt h e t i me he ev al ua te d Jone s, Jone s ha d no ac tiv e psy ch oti c fe at ur es. Id

. at 390
. D r. Jos ep h al so a cknow le dge d th at

he r el ie d onJon es ’ s pr iso n m ed ic al ch art s to for m his op in io n. Id

. The A labam a Court of Cr im inal Appeals aff irm ed the trial court’ s order de nyin g J on es po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f, se e Jo nes v . Sta te , 7 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 4 ( A l a . C r i m. App. 199 9) , a nd the Alab am a Su pr em e Co urt de nie d Jo ne s’ s pe tit ionf or w ri t of
ce rti orar i. O n D ec em

be r 15, 2000 , Jone s fil ed the pr es en t fe de ra l habe as pe tit ion
. I n hi s § 22 54 pe tit ion , Jone s al le ge d num er ous cl ai m s of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

tr ia l and ap pe llate c ouns el
. I n a ddi tio n, Jon es ass ert ed tha t ( 1) the state tr ia l and a ppe llate
co urts f ailed to c onsi de r ad equa te ly both st at

uto ry a nd n on- sta tut or

y m iti ga tin g ci rc um stanc es ; ( 2) the tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in fa ili ng t o ho ld a c om pe te nc y he ar ing ; ( 3) the
ev ide nc e at

tr ia l w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o sh ow t ha t he in te nde d to kil l any one ; ( 4) his
c o n v i c t i o n a n d d e a t h s e n t e n c e w e r e r a c i a l l y t a i n t e d ; ( 5 ) t h e p r a c t i c e o f A l ab a ma ap pe llate c ourts o f lim iting de ath pe na lty pr opor tio na lity r ev ie w to oth er

de athse ntenc ed c as es r es ult s ina n arb itr ar y appl ic at ionof

the de ath pe na lty ; ( 6) electrocution viol ates the E ighth and Fourteenth Am endm ents; (7) he wa s deprived of a fa ir and im

partial j ury because a par

ticular j uror failed to disclose during voir dire tha t he kne w the she ri ff

, the de put ie s in vol ve d inthe inv es tig at ion , an d the vic tim s;9

an d ( 8) he w as de pr ive d of af ai r tr ia l be ca

use aj ur or

inj ec te d im

pr ope r inf

orm at ion into th e j ury deliberations. T he district court denied Jon es relief
. The district court al so de ni edJo ne s’s m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t, b ut di d gr an t Jo ne s a COA on f our c la im s of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el
.
II. ISS UES 1. Wh e t h e r

J o n e s w a s d e p r i v e do f

h i s S i x t h A m e n d m e n tr i g h tt o e ff ec tiv e
as sis tanc e of

c ouns el w ithr es pe ct

to se nte nc ing c ouns el s’ a lle ge d f ai lur e to inv es tig at e tho ro ughl y

a nd p re se nt p ro pe rl y

m iti ga tin g e vid en ce of

Jon es ’ s a busi ve ch ildhood , m en ta l he al th p ro ble m s, a nd i nto xic at ion
. 2. Whe the r Jone s w as depr iv ed of his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o e ff ec tiv e assistance of counsel because of counsels’ fa i lure to objec t to the trial court’ s jur y in st ru ct io ns rel at in g t o t he bu rd en of p ro vi ng m al ic e. 3. Whe the r Jo ne s was de pr ive d of his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o e ff ec tiv e
as sis tanc e of

c ouns el on a

ppe al be cau se of

c ouns el ’ s f

ai lur e to r ai se a nd arg ue on appeal issues related to the j ury instruction s on prov ing m alice. 4. W he th er

Jon es w as de pr ive d of

his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o e ff ec tiv e
a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l b e c au s e o f

c o u n s e l ’s a l l e g e dr a c i a l b i a s a g a i n s th i m.10 III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W T his c ourt r ev ie w s f

or c le ar e rr or the dis tr ic t c ourt’s fin di ngs of f ac t and
re vie w s de novo bo th qu es ti on s of law an d m ix ed qu es ti on s o f la w and fact
. Ny lan d
v. M oore , 216 F. 3d 12 64, 1266 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). A n ineffective a ssistance of counsel cl ai m is a m ixe d qu es tio n of law an d fa ct tha t the c ourt r ev ie w s de novo
. Se e D obbs
v. T urpi n , 142 F. 3d 13 83, 1386 (11t h Cir. 1998 ). Since Jones’ s petiti o n was filed after the eff ective date of the A nti-Ter rorism and Ef fective D eat h PenaltyAc t (“ A E D PA ”) , w e, in es se nc e, r ev ie w the de ci sio ns o f the s ta te courts. P ur suant t o AEDPA, (d ) A n a

ppl ic at ionf

or aw ri t of ha be as c or pus on be ha lf of

ape rs on i n cu sto dy pur suant to the j udgm en t of a Sta te co urt sh al l no t be gr an te d w ithr es pe ct to an y c l a i m t h a t w a s a d

j u d i c a t e d o n t h e m e r i t s i n S t a t e c o u rt p r o c e e d i n g s unl es s th e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f

t h e c l a i m – (1) re sulted in a decision that wa s contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, c learly established Federal law, as determ ine d by

the Suprem e Court of the U nited St at es ; or (2) re sulted in a decision that was based o n an unr ea sona

ble de te rm ina tio n of

the f ac ts in li ght

of the ev ide nc e pr es en te d inthe S ta te c ourt pr oc ee din g. 28 U. S. C. § 225 4(d)(1), (2). Furtherm or e, a s t at e court’ s factual f indin gs are pr es um ed co rrect, unl es s r eb utt ed by the pe tit ion er

w ithc le ar

a nd c onvi nc ing ev id en ce. Id

. at 2254(e)(1). A state court decision is “ contrary to” clear ly

established federal la w i f ei the r (1 ) the state c ourt a ppl ie d ar

ule tha t c ontra dic ts the11

governin g law set forth by Suprem e Court case law , or (2) w hen faced w ith m at er ia lly ind ist ing uis hable fa ct s, the sta te co urt arr ive d a t a r es ult di ffer en t fr om

th atr e a c h e d i n a Supr em e Co ur t ca se . See B ottos on v. M oore , 234 F. 3d 52 6, 531 (11th Cir. 2000 ). A state court conducts an “ unr ea sona

ble appl ic at ion ” of

c le ar ly e sta bli she d f ed er al law if

it ide nti fi es the c or

rect le ga l r

ule f ro m S upr em e Co urt c as e law but un reas on ab ly app li es th atrul e to th e fac ts of th e pe ti ti on er’s cas e. See id. A n unreasonable appli cation m ay also occur if a

state court unreasonablyextends, or unreasonably decl i nes to extend, a legal pr in ci pl e fro m

Supr em e Co ur t cas e la w to a ne w con te xt
. Se e id. Notably , a

n “unreas o n ab l e ap p l i ca t i o n ” i s an “ o b je ct i v el y u n re as o n ab le” application.” Se e W

ill iam s [v

. T

ay lor ] , 529 U
. S. [ 362] , 412, 120 S
. Ct
. [1 4 9 5 ], 1 5 2 3 [( 2 0 0 0 )]. P utm an v . H

ea d , 268 F. 3d 1223, 1240 -41 (11th Cir . 2001). La stly , c learly established fe de ra l l aw“ re fe rs to the hol din gs, as oppo se d to the dic ta , of [ the S upr em e Co urt’ s] decisions as of the tim e of the relevant state- court decision.” W ill iam s v . T

ay lor , 529 U. S. 362, 412, 120 S. Ct. 1495 , 1523 (2000). IV. D ISCU SSION The petitioner’ s burden to p rove, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that
co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was un reas on ab le is a he av y on e. See Chandler v. U nited States , 218 F. 3d 13 05, 1313 (11t h Cir. 2000 ) ( en ban c ). I n or de r to e sta bli sh d ef ic ie nt p e r f o rma n c e , t h e p e t i t i o n e r

mu s ts h o w t h a t , i n l i g h to f a l l t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , c o un s el ’s pe rfo rm an ce was ou ts id e th e wid e ran ge of p ro fes si on al co m pe te nc e. Se e Str ic kland
v. W ashi ngt on , 466 U. S. 668, 690, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 2066 (1984). T he court’ s review of c ouns el ’ s pe rf

orm an ce sho uld

f oc us o n “ not

w ha t is p oss ibl e or

w ha t i s pr

ude nt o r appropriate, but only

[on] what is constitutio nally com pelled.” Chandl er , 218 F. 3d12

at 131 3 ( quot ing Bur

ge r v. K emp , 483 U
. S. 776, 107 S. Ct
. 3114 , 3126 ( 1987 ))
. T he court’ s reviewof counsel’ s perform ance m ust be hig hly

defer ential, and the court
m us t avo id se co nd -g ue ss in g c ou ns el ’s per fo rm an ce. Se e Str ic kland , 466 U
. S. a t 68 9, 104 S. Ct
. at

206 5. I f the r ec or d is not c om ple te r eg ar din g c ouns el ’ s a ct ion s, the n th e
co urts s houl d pr es um e “ tha t w ha t the part ic ular de fe nse lawyer did a t tri al – f or
e x a mp l e , w h a tw i t n e s s e s h e p r e s e n t e do r d i dn o tp r e s e n t–

w e r e a c t s t h a ts o me reasonable law y er m ight d o.” Chandl er , 218 F
. 3d a t 13 14- 15 n. 15. Mor eo ve r, the courts m ake an obje ctive inqui ry into the reasonableness of counsel’s per form ance. Id

. at 1315. For a

petition er to show defic ient perform ance, he “ m ust establis h that
no com petent couns el w ould have taken the action that his coun sel did take.” Id

. La stly , ther e ar e no ab s o l u t e rules dictating what is rea sonable perform ance be ca use absol ute r

ule s w oul d r es trict the w ide la tit ude c ouns el ha ve in m ak ing ta ct ic al de ci si on s. Se e id. a t 13 17. “ A s suc h, at a se nte nc ing pr oc ee din g, c ouns el is not required to present all m itigatio n evidence, e ven if additio nal m itigatio n evidence would have b ee n co m

patible with counsel’s stra tegy .” P utm an , 268 F
. 3d a t 12 44.

“ Co unse l’ s c om

ple te f ai lur e to p re se nt m iti ga tio n e vid en ce doe s no t ne ce ssari ly constitu te deficient perf

orm ance, even if m itigatio n evidence is available.” Id

. In lig ht of the se pr ec ep ts, w e w ill c onsi de r ea chof Jon es ’ s c la im s of

ine ff ec tiv e
as sis tanc e of

c ouns el
.13

A. Investigatio n and

presentati on of mitiga ting evidence Jones po sits that h is trial counsel, Jack G
. Da vis (“ Davis”), who represented Jone s a t bo th tri al s, a nd G eo rge M. Bol es ( “ Bo le s” ) w er e ine ff ec tiv e at se nte nc ing for f a i l i ng t o pr e se nt

e vi de nc e o f

h i s m e nt a l i l l ne ss , h i s abu si ve a nd d e pr i ve d ch ildho od , a nd h is s ubst an ce abuse a nd i nto xic at ionon the nig ht o f the m ur de rs . Jone s c la im s th at

thi s m iti ga tio n e vid en ce w oul d have e stabl ish ed the e xis te nc e of three statutory m itigatin g factors and negated two of the aggravating fac tors argued by the State, and the evidence would have cast subs tantial doub t on wh et h er J o nes ha d th e spe ci fi c int en t re qui re d unde r A la ba m a’ s ca pit al m ur de r sta tut e. Jon es a sse rt s t h a th i s c o u n s e l d i dn o mi t i g a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n : t h e y d i dn o ts p e a kwi t h h i s f a mi l y, fr ie nds or ne ighbor s; the y did not fo llo w up on cl ear ev ide nc e of his m en ta l i lln es s; and they did no t request his m edic al , ed ucational, em ploy m ent, or c orrectional
re co rd s. Jon es c ont en ds tha t this tot al f ai lur e to i nve sti ga te av aila ble m iti ga tio n evidence wa s unreasonable in lig ht of local professional stand ards. Ther efore, Jones
as se rt s th at

he did not r ec ei ve the e ff

ec tiv e as si st an ce of

c ouns el guarante ed

by the Si xt h Am en dm en t. 1. m en tal il lness Jone s c la im s th at

he is, a nd w as a t the ti m e of the c ri m e, psy ch oti c, tha t he suf fe rs f ro m or ga nic br ai n da m ag e, an d tha t he is a de pe nde nt p er sona lity a nd e as ily14

co er ce d. Jon es a sse r

t s th at num e r o u s p s y c h i atr ist s, psy ch olo gis ts and p hy sic ians h av e dia gnos ed

him a s ps y ch oti c. Jon es c ont en ds tha t be ca use his c ouns el f

ai le d to inv es tig at e his m en ta l he al th h ist or y , the j ur y did not kno w about

his psy ch osi s. W ithr eg ar d to thi s c la im , t he trial c ourt m ad e fi ndi ngs of f ac t f oll ow ing the Ru le 32 ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing
. T he tr ia l co ur

t no te d th at

Jon es pr es en te d th e te sti m ony of Dr . B rad Fisher, an expert in c linical forensic psy cholog y . Dr . F isher testified that Jones su ffer ed at the tim e of the cr im e and continues to suffer from significant m ental
co ndi tio ns, suc h a s de pe nde nc y , m ult i- subs tanc e ab use , or ga nic im pa irm en t, a nd
m aj or tho ught dis or de r. I n r ea ch ing thi s op ini on, D r. Fi she r re vie w ed Jon es ’ s pr ior court records, fam ily

m em bers’ aff idavits, m edical re cords, and prison records, which
co nsi ste d of de posi tio ns fr om D r. T hom as L
. S m itha nd D r. Ja m es C. T hom psonin 1979 , and the 19 79 evaluation by Dr s. Thom

pson and Sm ith do ne at Br y ce H ospit al fo r the L un acy

Co m m iss ion
. D r. F ish er

a lso pe rs ona lly

e va lua te d Jo ne s and interviewed f

am ily m em bers, such as Maritha E rby (m other), Gle n Jones ( s i s t er), H en ry E rb y ( ha lf -b ro the r) , P hy lli s F ae ve rs ( ha lf -s ist er ), Joh nny Wri ght

( unc le ), a nd Barb ara J on es (ni ece)
. T he tr ia l c ourt the n m ad e the f oll ow ing f

ac tua l f ind ing s: The record r eflec ts that couns el for petitioner investigated and p ursued a m ental health defense for the first trial. Petitio ner had been evaluated by the Lunacy Com

m issio n. Previous counsel, during th e first tr ial, had15

filed appropriate m otion s fo r m ental evaluations and had conducted de posi tio ns o f the m en ta l he al th e xpe rt s w ho ev al ua te d pe tit ion er . T he tr ia l c ourt su

bse que ntl y

de nie d th e m ot ion fo r pr iva te psy ch ia tr ic ex am ina tio n and t es tin g an d funds fo r ane xpe rt w itn es s inthe f

ie ld o f m en ta l he al th t o pe rf

orm int el lig en ce a nd p er so na li ty t es ts o n th e pe tit ion er . T he re af

te r, pe tition er

w as gr an te d hi s r igh t t o r ef ile his m oti on f or psy ch ia tr ic e xa m ina tio n and s ai d m oti on w as gr an te d. Su bse que ntl y , in pr ep ar at ionf or the se co nd tri al , Ja ck

D av is f ile d a m oti on f or e xpe rt w itn es se s inc lud ing m en ta l he al th e xpe rt s and f ile d a m otion for private psy chiatric exam ination and testing. That was denied by the Co urt onD ec em

be r 7, 198 2. T his Co urt f ind s th at c ouns el in the 1982 tr ia l f

ile d th e app ro pr ia te m oti ons re que sti ng m en ta l he al th e xpe rt s an d th e ap pr opr ia te e va lua tio ns and t es ts to be pe rf orm ed upo n petition er and was denied rel i ef b y the Court. P etitioner claim s that D av is and Bo les di d no t a de qua te ly pr es en t the te sti m ony

a va ila ble to the m a s to the m en ta l he al th of the pe tit ion er a nd h ad the y pr es en te d th e av ai la ble inf orm at ion , the y

w oul d have be ena llo w ed to pr es en t the te st im on y be fo re t he jury. This Court, after having review ed the records that wer e re viewed by Dr
. Fi she r, the te sti m ony

of w itn es se s and the de posi tio ns s ubm itt ed by both pa rt ie s of the pr iso n phy sic ians tha t tre at ed the pe tit ion er , f

ind s th at the basis for Dr . F isher’ s opin ion is q uestion able. T he f ir st are a of doub t is the dia gnos is o f psy ch osi s. I t a ppe ar s th at

the original diagn osis was m ade by Dr . R ichard Cooksey , a general pr ac tit ion er

f or inm at es in the pr iso n sy ste m . O n O ct obe r 17, 1991 , he ex am ine d the pe tit ion er fo r w ei ght los s. Pe tit ion er ha d a weigh t- los s p r o b l e m a n dD r . C o o k s e y, n o tf i n d i n g a p h ys i c a l r e a s o n f o r t h e p r o b l e m, doub te d an or ga nic ba sis f or w ei ght los s and f

el t t ha t the w ei ght

los s w as ar es ult

of the pe tit ion er j ust not

e at ing
. P et iti one r tol d hi m tha t he w oul d no t e at

a nythi ng o n hi s tray

if the tr ay c am e in c ont ac t w ith anything “ unclean.” Although in his records he wr ote that p et ition er adm itted aud i t o ry

hallucination s, the doctor adm itted that they we re poor ly de sc ri be d a t the tim e. T he doc tor c oul d r em em

be r nothin g a

bout the na tur e of

the ha llu ci na tio ns. A dm itt ing tha t he w as not a16

p s ych i at ri s t , t h e d o ct o r st at ed , “ If h e is n o t ea t i n g , h e’s p s ych o t i c. Th at ’s pretty m uch norm al d ay -to-day functionin g, eating.”. . . He m ade notes refle cting his diagno sis of petitioner in the m edical re cords of petition er an d r ec om m en de d th at

pe tit ion er

w oul d be be st s er

ve d a t K ilb y Correc tional Insti tutio n where he w ould get treatm en t for his m ental he al th
.

. . . T he re fo re , e ve n th ough th e m ed ic al r ec or ds i ndi ca te som e sort of m ental health histo ry , including earlier re co rd s of the Lunacy Co m m is si on , th is C ourt c onc lud es tha t the re ha s be enno r ea sona ble dependable diagno sis of p sy chosis to supp ort the opin ion of Dr. F isher, an d in de ed

it appe ar s to thi s C ourt tha t the re is n o e vid en ce of psy ch osi s. A l t h o u g h D r . F i s h e r

s t a t e s t h a th i s t e s t i n g s h o w e dt h a t t h e r e i s s o me organicity

in the psy chosis and other m ental problem s of the petition er, the re is no e vid en ce to supp ort thi s opi nio n. . . . T his Co urt no te s th at it allow e d t he pe t i t i on e r t o be t e st e d f or a ny or gani c ba si s f

or m ental he al th p ro ble m s. Petit ion er w as tr an spor

te d to af ac ili ty w hic h c oul d pe rf orm the te sts , but

no t es t r es ult s or te sti m ony w as pr es en te d to thi s Court as to the result of those tests. T herefor e, this Court conclud es that t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e o f a n o r g a n i c b a s i s f o r a n y me n t a l h e a l t h p r o b l e ms the petition er m ight h ave. T he dia gnos is o f lowint el lig en ce is re but te d by te sti m ony

of f am ily m em bers who stated the petitioner did well in school and no evidence w a s p r e s e n t e dt o c o n t r a d i c tt h a t
. A l t h o u g h t h e p e t i t i o n e r qu i tsc hool be fo re he gr ad

ua te d, he di d la ter

obt ai n hi s G E D , w hic h r eb uts a ny evidence of low intelligence to the poin t wher e it w ould have an eff ect on th e o ut co m e o f hi s t ria l o r se nt en ci ng .

. . . All the testim ony as t o drug use refle cts that the drug use wa s volu ntary and there w as no evidence or organic eff ects of his long -term

drug use. Voluntary

drug use has never excused or m itigated a crim e of this nature in the State of A labam a nor does it in thi s case.17

A ft er co n s i d e r i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f D r . F i s h e r

a n de x a m i n i n g t h e b a s is from which he f

orm ed his opinion, this Court is of the opin ion that there is n o c re dib le e vid en ce of sig nif ic an t m en ta l he al th p ro ble m s in petition er. R. V ol. 8- 9, ¶
. 105 0- 1055
. On ap p ea l , th e Al ab ama Co u rt o f Cr i m i n al Ap p ea l s ag re ed wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’s fin di ng s. W e ag re e w iththe tr ia l c ourt th at the e vid en ce pr es en te d by Jon es in supp ort of

thi s c la im , inc lud in g th e te sti m ony of D r. F ish er

a nd the de posi tio ns and a ff

idavit of oth er e xpe rt w itn es se s, wa s no t a de qua te evidence of a m itigatin g circ u m stance and wa s refuted by other te sti m ony a nd e vid en ce a dm itt ed

a t the he ar ing a nd a t tri al
. Jo nes v . Sta te , 753 So. 2d at 119 4. T he cou rt al s o fo u n d it signi ficant that the trial
co urt pr ovi de d Jo ne s w itha n opportun ity to be te ste d to de te rm ine a n or ga nic ba sis fo r the a lle ge d m en ta l he al th p ro ble m s, but Jon es a dm itt ed

no t es t r es ult s a t hi s R

ule 32 he ari ng an d re li edin st ead on op in io n e vi de nc e. Id

. T he c ourt a lso f

ound sig nif ic an t the f ind ing of the L una cy

Co m m iss iontha t Jo ne s w as not suf fe ri ng f ro m
a m en ta l ill ne ss at the ti m e of the a ct s c ha rg ed

tha t w oul d have pr ev en te d hi m f ro m di st in gu is hi ng rig ht fro m

wron g. Id

. at 1194 -95. The court concluded th at Jones had fai le d t o e st ab li sh hi s b ur de n wi th res pe ct to th is cla im of i ne ffec ti ve ne ss . Id

. a t 11 95. T he state c ourts’ de te rm ina tio n th at Jone s did not m ee t hi s burd enon the c la im of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el w ith re ga rd to the pr es en ta tio n of m en ta l i lln es s
m iti ga tio n evid en ce is not anunr ea sona ble appl ic at ionof

c le ar ly e sta bli she d law a ndJone s’ s o the r c ouns e l, Ja c k D avis , d id n ot t e sti fy a t th e po st- c onvic tio n h e ari ngbe c a us e 1 he is dec ease d. 18 is no t b as edon an u n r e a s o n a bl e d et erm in at io n o f th e fac ts
. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d )( 2)
. A s th e dis tric t c ourt no te d, “ [m ] uc h of the e vid en tiary

ba sis f or petition er’ s current cla im of m ental illness arose after his tr ia l, du rin g hi s im pr iso nm en t. C er

ta inl y , it w as not obj ec tiv el y unr ea sona ble f or the state c ourts t o discoun t this evid ence that did not exist at the tim e the trial occ urred. ” D istrict Court Re co rd V ol. 2, T ab 27, p. 49. T he inf orm at ion co unse l ha d be fo re the m at the 198 2 tr ia l w as the 197 9 L una cy Co m m iss ionRe port w hic h in dic at ed tha t Jo ne s di d not suf fe r fr om am en ta l ill ne ss. Furthe rm or e, Bo le s te sti fi ed at Jone s’ s Ru le 32 h eari ng 1 tha t Jo ne s di d no t have an y pr obl em s co m m uni ca tin g w ithhim

a nd D av is d

ur ing tr ia l. Id

. a t 16 7. B ole s st at ed

tha t he a nd D av is t al ke d to Jo ne s e xte nsi ve ly about the
se nte nc ing , a nd the y

appare ntl y

c onc lud ed

not to pres en t any

psy ch olo gic al or ps y ch ia tri c te st im on y

at s en te nc in g. Id

. at 1 05, 1 46. Boles em

phasized that he relied he av ily upo n D av is’ s know le dge of the ca se be ca use D av is re pr es en te d Jo ne s a t hi s 19 79 tri al
. I

d. a t 68
. The f actual determ ination m ade by the state courts is p re s u m ed to be correc t unl es s th e pet iti one r can re but the pr es um pti on by cl ear an d conv inc ing ev ide nc e. 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (e )( 1) ; see als o R obi nson v . M oore , 300 F. 3d 13 20, 1342 (11t h Cir.19

20 02 ), cert. denied , R obi nson v . Cr osby , 540 U. S. 1171 , 124 S. Ct. 1196 (2004). Jone s pr es en ts n o e vid en ce t o reb ut the state c ourts’ f ind ing tha t B ole s and D av is
we re not ineffe ctive for f ailing to present at sentencing any evidence of Jo n es ’s al le ge d m en ta l i lln es s. A t the ti m e of tr ia l, the y did not ha ve a ny e vid en ce to ind ic at e any potential m ental illnes s, and instead, had a Lunacy Com m issio n Report that stated to the co nt rary. B ole s a lso state d th at Jon es ha d no pr obl em s c om m uni ca tin g w ith him and Davis during trial, and he and Davis discussed whether to pre sent m ental he al th t es tim ony

a t se nte nc ing an d co nc lud ed not to pr es en t suc h te sti m ony . I n li ght of thi s, w e cannot

say tha t the state c ou rts’ f ind ing tha t J one s’ s c ouns el s’ pe rfo rm an ce was no t d efi ci en t was an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts
. 2. abus iv e ch ild

hood Jone s co nte nds tha t his co unse l w er e ine ff ec tiv e be ca

use the y did

not pr es en t in m iti ga ti on an y

e vid en ce of

his abusi ve c hil dhoo d. Jon es a sse rt s th at the state
co urts’ de te rm ina tio n th at the ev ide nc e of ab use w as ne gli gib le w as a n un re as ona ble determ ination of the fac ts i n l i ght of the evidence presented in the state court pr oc ee din gs. The tr ial court found as follows concerning Jon es’ s alleged abuse: Pe tit ion er ’ s si ste r, G le n Jo ne s, te sti fi ed to ab use by th ei r fathe r. S he te sti fi ed tha t he r fa the r w as rare ly ar ound but w he n he did c om e tha t he would m ake petitioner and Glen take off their clothes, wo u l d tie them20

to a doo r knob a nd be at the m w ith a co rd
. Sh e te sti fi ed tha t the be at ing s with a c ord wer e so severe that w ire fr om the extension cord w as em bedded in th eir fle sh. T he Court concludes that th i s is an e x a g g e r a t i o n a n dt h a th a dt h i s ab u s e o c c u rr e dt h e r e w o u l db e s o me obvi ous sc ar

ri ng f ro m w he re suc h y oung c hil dr enw er e be at ento the poin t wher e the in s u l at i o n of an extension cord was torn off and w ire wa s em bedded in th eir skin. The other evidence of abuse is neglig ible. T he o p i n i o n o f D r . F i s h e r a s t o t h e e f f e c t s up o n p e t i t i o n e r of

thi s “ ab usi ve c hil dhoo d” is re but te d by oth er fam ily m em be rs tha t t es tif

ie d, includi ng Glen Jones. T heir testim ony suggest s that, althoug h pe tition er had to liv e w i th relatives and was bea ten by his father and had other pr obl em s w ithf

am ily m em be rs , he ad

j ust ed w el l. P et iti one r m ad e good gr ad es in sc ho ol and h ad no tro ubl e w ithte ac he rs . H e w as he lpf ul t o pe opl e an d w as pol ite a nd w el l be ha ve d. H e w as able to m ai nta in em ploy m ent and althou gh he had a fewproblem s with attendance, wa s generall y c onsid ered to be a good worker
. Petitioner attended church an d pl ay ed

in the sc hool ba nd. H e w as not a vio le nt pe rs on g ro w ing up. R. V ol. 8- 9, ¶
. 105 3- 54. The tr ial court further no ted that seven of J ones’ s fam ily m em bers testified at the Rule 32 hearing regarding Jones’s childhood and upbrin gin g . Th e trial c ourt
co nc lud ed tha t the ev ide nc e pr es en te d by the f am ily m em be rs did not e sta bli sh any
m itigatin g circum stances that would have changed the outcom e o f Jones’ s sentence. Inso con cl udi ng, the tr ia l c ourt no te d th at it w as “ ea sy

to se e w hy

c ouns el w oul d be
re luc tant t o cal l Gl en Jone s for the se co nd tri al af te r he ar ing he r te sti m ony f ro m the fi rs t tri al
. ” R. V ol. 9, p. 105 9. The petitioner w as at her house t h e n i g h t of the m urders. The sister testified that prior to le aving w ith G iles to go to the Ne lsons , Jones w as21

shoo tin g dr

ugs in h er hou se . S he did

not que stion or ob

j ec t t o th e use of dr ugs by he r br oth er

in he r hous e w ithhe r ch ildre n pr es en t. S he a lso testified as to the extent that every bodywa s intox icated or high, w hich wa s incons i s t en t wi t h her testim ony that she allowed no one but h er brother to use drugs in her hom e. He r testim ony as to how Giles ta lked Jone s, the pe tit ion er , int o goi ng to the N el sons , sho w s th at the re w as not m uch coercion utilized by

Giles. He s im

ply asked Jones m ore than once to go and Jones agreed. This testim ony would have seriously

prej udiced the petition er in th e trial of this case and since petitioner was convicted in h is 1 979 tr ia l, tr ia l c ouns el in the 198 2 tr ia l ha d go od r ea son to avoi d usi ng G le n Jo ne s a s aw itn es s. Id

. at 1 0 5 9 -6 0 . Th e c o u rt p ro v i d ed fu rt h eras s es s m en to f t h e f amil y m emb er s ’ t e s t i mo n y: The m itigatin g evidence presented by the petition er shows no m ore than a ch ild of abr oke n f

am ily tha t had po sitive a nd n eg at ive inf lue nc es in his life but chos e to follow th e fr iends that he grew up with that w ere taking drugs. From the testim ony of these witnesses it is apparent that pe tit ion er h ad th e ab ili ty to do w el l i n sc hool , ha d pe opl e in whom he could confid e and by

whom he could be advised, was involved in chu rch ac t i v i ties such as choir and oth er e xtracurric ular activities such as play ing in the sc hool band. T he pe tit ion er ’ s te m pe ram en t w as pe ac ef

ul an d th e onl y ne ga tiv e inf

lue nc e ap pe ar s to be the inf lue nc e of his f ri en ds w ho u se d dr

ugs. Aaron Jones h ad the abilities and the oppo rtunities to m ake the choices that every one has to m ake in life and m ade th e in correc t choice. When Aaron Jones st arted using drugs his life changed. H is m itigatio n is that the drugs m ade h i m co m m it the crim e. Fre quentlythis has been interposed as a defense and as m itigatio n but it h as never been a ccepted as an excuse to m itigate this ty pe of crim e. The te stim ony

of t hese witnesses is unconv incing. Ha d it been pr es en te d to the j ur

y it w oul d no t e sta

bli sh m iti ga tio n f

or the a ct s of

the petition er.22

Id

. a t 10 62. Afte r re vie w ing the te sti m ony of Jon es ’ s f

am ily m em be rs a nd f

ri en ds, the Alabam a Cou rt o f Crim inal Appeals agreed with t he trial cou rt’ s finding . The c ourt
co nc lud ed

tha t “ none of

the ir test im ony

sup porte d af

ind ing of am iti ga tin g ci rc u m s t a n c e r e c o g n i z e db y § 1 3 A
- 5
- 5 1 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , a n dw o u l dn o tha ve ch an ge d t he ba la nc e o f th e m it ig at in g a nd ag gr av at ing c ir cum sta nc es in Jo ne s’s ca se .” Jo nes v . Sta te , 753 So.2d at 1196-97. T he court further noted that because there w as no error in th e trial c ourt’ s determ ination that the evidence would not have changed the outcom e of Jones’ s trial, it could n ot say that Jones’s tria l coun s el w ere ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o pr es en t the te sti m ony of Jon es ’ s f am ily m em be rs a nd f ri en ds

. Id

. a t 11 97. “ Jone s ha s no t e stab lis he d ar ea sona ble pr oba bil ity tha t bu t f

or his counsel’s failure to c all these witnesses and present the alleged m itigatin g evidence dur ing the se nte nc ing pha se of his tr ia l tha t the out co m e of the se nte nc ing pr oc ee din g would have been differe nt.” Id

. Th u s , t h e ap p el l at e co u rt ag re ed wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’s
ru lin g th at

Jon es ’ s c ouns el were no t ine ff ec tiv e in f

ai lin g to c al l the se f

am ily
m em be rs to tes ti fy

at s en te nc in g. Id

. B a s e d u p o n o u r

r e v i e w o f

t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d , w e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e A l ab a ma
co urts p ro pe rl y

f ound tha t Jone s’ s at tor

ne y s w er e not

ine ff ec tiv e in f ai lin g to pr es en t
ev ide nc e at se nte nc ing ab out his abusi ve c hil dhoo d and u pbr ing ing
. T he te sti m ony23

at the Rule 32 hearing indicates that other than Glenn Jones’ s testim ony , the e vidence of abuse w as ne gli gib le
. Add iti ona lly , G le n Jone s’ s tes tim ony w as co ntr ad ic tor y a nd potenti ally

m ore harm ful than helpful. Furtherm ore, Boles testified that he reca lled tha t D av is t al ke d to fam ily m em be rs an d m en tio ne d that the re w as som e pr obl em or estrangem ent within the fam ily
. R. Vol. 1, p. 102. In light of this, we cannot say that the A la ba m a co urts’ de te rm ina tio n is c ontrary to or inv olv es a n un re as ona

ble application o f fe deral lawas d eterm ined by the Suprem e Cou rt. N or can w e say that the state courts’ decision is based on an unreasonable dete rm ination of the fac ts that were p res en te d d ur in g t he st at e co ur t p ro ceed in gs . 3. subs tan ce and

alc ohol abu se Jone s asse rt s th at

his a tto rn ey s w er e ine ff

ec tiv e be ca

use the y f ai le d to pr es en t
ev ide nc e tha t he w as suf

fe ri ng f ro m atox ic psy ch osi s onthe nig ht o f the m ur de rs a nd
wa s not able to app recia te the cri m i n al i t y o f hi s conduct o r to conform his condu ct to the requirem ents of the law. Th e t rial cou rt noted Glen Jones’ s testim ony that Jone s ha d be endr ink ing an d doing dr ugs the nig ht o f the m

ur de r in i ts c onsi de ratio n of the poss ibl e m iti ga tio n evid en ce co unse l shoul d have pr es en te d a t se nte nc ing
. T he tr ia l c ourt, how ev er , did

not sin gle out

thi s is sue as one of ine ff

ec tiv en es s, nor

did the Alabam a Court of Cr im inal Appeals. The portion of the state court opinio n that Jon es24

at ta ck s de al s w ithc ouns el s’ f ai lur e to p re se nt i nt ox ic at iona s a de fe nse dur ing the gu il t p ha se of t he tri al
. Se e Jo nes v . Sta te , 75 3 S o.2 d a t 1 19 0- 91
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th is i ssu e an d f ound tha t c ou ns el were no t ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o pr es en t e vid en ce of Jon es ’ s int oxi ca tio n in m iti ga tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at

e vid en ce of

Jon es ’ s dr

ug u se w as pr es en te d to the j ur y dur ing the gui lt sta ge . W itn es se s te sti fi ed a t the 198 2 tr ia l tha t Jo ne s a ppe ar ed dr unk, a nd Jone s a dm itt ed

in his c onf

es sio n th at he ha d be en dr ink ing he av ily the day of the
m urder, and that he was “ so far gone” that he stabbed wildly
. The district court
co nc lud ed

tha t the re w as no r ea son to be lie ve tha t the j ur y fa ile d to c onsi de r thi s gu ilt stage testim ony

for w hatever m itigatin g power it ha d d u ring the sentencing stage. D istri ct Co urt R ec or d, V ol. 2, T ab 27, ¶
. 41- 42. Be ca use Jon es did

not r ai se thi s sp ec if

ic c la im of ine ff ec tiv e as sista nc e of
co un se l in st at e co ur t, th e cl ai m is pr oc edur al ly b arre d. Se e Jo hnston v. Sin gle tar y , 162 F. 3d 6 30, 634 -3 5 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8)
. A ssu m ing argu en do tha t Jone s ra ise d in st at e court the specific claim

that counsel were ineffec tive for failing to present evidence of his tox ic p sy chosis in m itigatio n, the claim lacks m erit. T he only

evidence Jones proffer s to sup port his claim is the affidavit of D r. Davis. Dr . Davis opined th at Jones
wa s s u ff er i n g fr o m t o x i c p s ych o s i s o n t h e n i g h to f t h e mur d er s ; h o we v er , Dr . Da v i s ’s af fi da vit w as sub m itt ed

a ft er the Ru le 32 h eari ng, a nd the S ta te ha d no opp ortun ity25

to c ro ss- ex am ine him
. B ec au se Jon es f ai ls t o pr es en t any

c re dib le e vid en ce to supp ort hi s c la im

of tox ic psy ch osi s, he cannot show tha t his c ouns el w er e ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o pr es en t this a lle ge d e vid en ce in m iti ga tio n. 4. prejudice Jones c a nn ot de m on str a t e t ha t hi s c ouns e l s’ pe r f or m a nc e a t se nt e nc i ng wa s de fi ci en t. N or can Jone s de m onstrate tha t he w as pr ej udi ce d by co unse ls’ f ai lur e to pr es en t the m iti ga tin g ev ide nc e of Jone s’ s al le ge d m en ta l ill ne ss, hi s abus ive ch ildhood , a nd h is a lle ge d tox ic psy ch osi s. A s not ed earl ie r, the A la ba m a sta te c ourts
co rr ec tly f ound tha t the e vid en ce sub m itt ed by Jon es dur ing his state pos t- co nvi ct ion pr oc ee din g w as not

m iti ga tio n e vid en ce tha t w oul d have ch an ge d th e out co m e of his sentencing. The Alaba m a Co u rt of Crim inal Appeals applied the proper prej udice standard und er Str ic kland a nd f ound th at Jon es did

not e sta bli sh “ a re as ona

ble pr oba bil ity tha t bu t for his co unse l[ s’ ] fa ilure to ca ll the se w itn es se s and p re se nt the
a l l e g e dmi t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e du r i n g t h e s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e o f h i s t r i a l t h a t t h e o u t c o me of the sentencing procee ding would have been differ ent.” Jo nes v. Sta te , 753 S o. 2d at 119 7. The c ourt c onsi de re d th e tot al ity of the a lle ge d m iti ga tio n e vid en ce a nd concluded th at “ because we h ave d eterm ined that evidence of Jones’ s alleged m ental ill ne ss, the f

or en sic e vid en ce , a nd the te sti m ony of f am ily a nd f ri en ds w oul d no t have26

established a m itigatin g circum stance, we cannot hold that Jones’s tria l counsel [w ere] ineffec tive for fa iling to present this evid ence. ” Id

. Gi v en t h e h ei n o u s n es s o f t h e cr i m e an d t h e o v er wh el m i n g ev i d en ce o f J o n es ’s gu il t, ther e sim

ply is no r ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity tha t c ouns el s’ f

ai lur e to p re se nt
ev ide nc e of

Jon es ’ s a lle ge d m en ta l he al th p ro ble m s, his ab usi ve c hil dhoo d, a nd h is
ex ce ssi ve dr ink ing on the nig ht of the m ur de rs pr ej udi ce d Jo ne s. Jon es , a rm ed w ith a gun, w ent with G iles to rob the Ne lsons . Once inside the house, Jones stabbed th ree of the four v ictim s, two of whom died from these injurie s. More over, Jones stabbed the victim s in front of their two children, while one child begged him to stop
. Jones al so s ta bbe d on e of

the c hil dr enin th e ba ck
. I n li ght of thi s e vid en ce , the re is no
re as ona ble pr oba bil itytha t the out co m e of the se nte nc ing pr oc ee din g w oul d have been differe nt had coun sel presented this m itigatio n evidenc e. Ac cordingly , Jones is n ot e nti tle d to r el ie f on the se c la im s of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el
. B. O bje ct ion to m ali ce ins tru ct ion Jones cont ends that his counsel were ineffec tive for fa i l i n g to object to an im pr ope r bur de n- shi ft ing c ha rg e on m al ic e. Jones as se rt s th at the j ur y ins tr uc tio n on the e le m en t of

m al ic e cr ea te d am an da tor y pr es um pti on tha t re lie ve d the St at e of it s burden of p ersuasion and shifted the burden to him
. The trial court instructed the jury
as f oll ow s:27

N ow , w e hav e [a ] sta tut e w hic h def ine s m ur de r in the f

ir st d eg re e. T his statute say s that every

willful, deliberate, m alicious and p rem editated kil lin g o f a hu m an be ing is m ur de r in the f

ir st d eg re e. N owI w ill undertake to define these four term s for y ou in order that y ou m ay better unde rs tand them , a nd i n do ing so, w ill use the langua ge use d by the Su pr em e Co urt m an y

y ears a go. W ill fu l m eans g ove rn ed by the w ill w it ho ut y ie ldi ng t o r ea son. D el ibe rate m eans f

orm ed w it h de liber at ionin co ntr ad ist inc tio n to a sudd en and rash act. Malice m eans done with a fixed hate or w icked int en tio n o r

am o t i v e , n o tt h e r e s u l to f as u d d e n p a s s i o n . T h a ti s the de fi nit ionof

a ct ua l m al ic e. B ut the w or d m al ic e, as use d inthi s st at ute w hic h de fi ne s m

ur de r, ha s a br oa de r m eanin g than th at
. I t i nc lud es , not onlyactual m alice, but inclu de s wh at w e call legal or im plied m alice. A nd i n the br oa de r se nse , it m eans the state or

c ondi tio n of

the m ind which p ro m

pted a person to do an unlawful ac t without legal j ust if ic at ionor e xte nua tio n. N owe ve ry

int en tio na l and u nlaw fu l ki lli ng o f a hum anbein g is presum ed to be don e w ith m alice af orethoug ht unl ess the circum stances tha t surr ound

the kil lin g re but the ide a of m al ic e. E ve ry

int en tio na l and unl awfu l ki lli ng o f a hum anbe ing w ithade ad ly w ea pon, suc h a s a pistol or w ithakni fe , is pr es um ed to be don e w ithm al ic e unl es s th e evidence that proved the kill ing rebuts th e presum ption of m alice. R. V ol. 7, ¶
. 683 -8 5. O n ap p e a l f

r o m t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’s d e n i a l o f p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f , t h e A l ab a ma Co urt of Cr im ina l Appe al s conc lud ed tha t the ins tr

uc tio n di d no t r equir e the j ur y to inf er or pr es um e the e le m en t of m al ic e af or ethoug ht in the abse nc e of e vid en ce f

ro m Jo ne s t ha t s uc h a pre su m pt io n was un warra nt ed
. Se e Jo nes v . Sta te , 753 So .2 d at 1189
. I n so c onc lud ing , th e court no te d th at “ the pr ed ic at e fa ct

sup portin g th e28

pr es um pti on i s Jone s’ s int en tio na l an d unl aw fu l kil lin gs of the vic tim s w ithade ad ly
we apon, i.e ., a knife. ” Id

. a t 11 88. T he j ur

y w as to pr es um e fr om

the pr oof of the kil lin gs tha t Jo ne s c om

m itt ed the m ur de rs w ithm al ic e af

or ethoug ht. “ H ow ev er , in order for the j urors to reach that conclusion, the State had to prove that Jones ki lled the v i c t i m s i nt e nt i on a l l y

a nd t ha tt he c i r c um st a nc e s of t he k i l l i ng s e vi de nc e d t ha t Jones acted with m alice af orethoug ht.” Id

. T he co urt fo und tha t the ins tr uc tio n di d
no t s hi ft t he Sta te ’s bu rd en to est ab li sh th e el em en t o f m al ic e. Id

. at 118 8- 89 ( re ly ing
on F ranc is v
. F

rank lin , 471 U. S. 307, 314, 105 S. Ct. 1965 , 1971 (1985)). The c ourt furthe r not ed tha t the tr ia l cour t als o gave a charg e co nc er nin g Jo ne s’ s pr es um

pti on of inn oc en ce a nd the S ta te ’ s burd enof pr oof
. T hus, th e court

f ound tha t i n considering the j ury

charge in it s en t i re t y , any err or wa s cured by

the addition al ch arg es . Jones , 753 S o. 2d a t 11 89. A cc or din gly , the co urt co nc lud ed tha t “ [b ] ec au se Jones ha[d] failed to e stablish that the trial court’ s instructio n on m alice constituted
erro r, he ha [d ] f

ai le d to sho w tha t hi s tr ia l c ouns el w [e re ] ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o challenge this in struction.” Id

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d w iththe A la ba m a Co urt of Cr im ina l Appe al s th at the ins tr uc tio n onm al ic e did

not r el ie ve the S ta te of

it s bur de n of

pr ovi ng e ve ry

e le m en t of c ap ita l m ur de r. H ow ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpr es se d so m e co nc er n w iththe state appellate court’ s reasoning in addressing th is issu e. In a f ootn o te, the district court29

stated that the state appellate court concluded that th e instruction in this case involv ed
m er el y ape rm iss ive inf

er en ce , not

am an da tor

y pr es um pti on. I n Sand

strom v. M ontana , 442 U
. S. 510, 99 S. Ct
. 2450 (1 97 9) , and F ranc is v
. F

rank lin , 471 U. S. 307, 105 S. Ct. 1965 (1985), the Suprem e Court cautioned that the words “presum e”
or “ pr es um pti on” im ply am an da tor

y f ind ing , not

m er el y a pe rm iss ive inf

er en ce the jury m ay or m ay no t d raw. F ranc is , 471 U
. S. at

316
. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound it dif fi cu lt to say

tha t the c onc lus ionr ea ch ed by the state appe llate c ourt w as not

“ co n t ra ry to” F ranc is
. D i s t r i c t C o u rt R e c o r d V o l
. 2 , T ab 2 7 , p . 8 3
- 8 4 n. 14. L ike w ise , the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at the state appe llate c ourt c onc lud ed tha t the g en er al i n s t ru ct i o n ab o u tt h e d ef en d an t ’s p re s u m

p t i o n o f i n n o ce n ce an dt h e S t at e’s burden of proof cured any defect in this particular instruction on m alice. T he district
co urt no te d th at

both Sand

str om a nd F

ranc is rej ected the notion th at such general ins tr uc tio ns are a de qua te to cure aspe ci fi c bur de n- shi ft ing ins tr uc tio n. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt fo und tha t the state appe llate c ourt’ s r ea soni ng w as “ co ntr ar y to” F ranc is
. Se e id. H ow ev er , the dis trict c ourt a gr ee d th at Jon es did

not r ec ei ve ine ff

ec tiv e assistance due to co u nsels’ failure to obj ect to the m alice instruction. T he district
co urt c onc lud ed

tha t the ins tr

uc tio n did not re al ly re lie ve the St at e of the bur de n of pr ovi ng a ll el em en ts of the of fe nse of c ap ita l m ur de r; a nd s ec ond, if

the ins tr uc tio n30

w as e rr or , it

w as harm le ss e rr or

in lig ht o f the ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce a ga ins t Jo ne s. T hus, und er

e ith er r at ion al e, c ouns el s’ f

ai lur e to o bj ec t t o th e ins tr ucti on did

not pr ej udi ce Jon es . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed : A la ba m a law de fi ne s m al ic e in this c ont ex t a s “ the state or c ondi tio n of the m ind which prom

pted a person to do an unlawful ac t without legal j ustific at ion or extenuatio n.” Under the c ourt’ s instructio n, the j ury “ pr es um ed ” m al ic e, tha t i s, tha t the m ur de rs w er e done w itha reco gn it io n th at th ey were “ wit ho ut leg al jus ti fic at io n o r ex te nu at io n,” on ly after f

in di ng fir st th atth e k il li ng s were “ in te nt io na l an d u nl awfu l.” T he state a lw ay s r et ai ne d th e bur de n of pr ovi ng b oththa t the kil lin gs w er e in te nti ona lly

don e by pe tit ion er

a nd tha t the y

w er e unl aw fu lly

don e by him
. T he j ur

y ’ s f ind ing that th e kil lin gs w er e int en tio na l and unl aw fu l w as , in ef

fe ct , a fin di ng o f m al ic e, notw ith standi ng the pr es um pti on c ont ai ne d inthe ins tr uc tio n. Fi na lly , c oupl ing the e xpl ic it pla ce m en t of the bur de n of

pr ovi ng int en tio na l and u nlaw fu l ki lli ngs on the state w iththe c onc lud ing phr as e of t he i ns t r

uc t i ont ha tm a l i c e i s pr e su m e d “ un l e ss t he e vi de nc e t hat proved t h e killin g rebuts the presum ption of m alice, ” it becom es ap pa re nt tha t the ins tr

uc tio n a lw ay s r equir ed

the S ta te ’ s e vid en ce to pr ov e m al ic e. I f the “ ev ide nc e tha t pr ove d th e kil lin g, ” tha t i s, the State’ s evidence, f

ailed to show m alice, then the presum ption wa s re but te d. T he ins tr

uc tio n ne ve r re qui re d th e pe tit ion er to of fe r any rebutting evid ence; rather, it lay entirely in the State’ s burden of proof. T hus, the ins tr

uc tio n di d no t sh if

t the bur de n to the pe tit ion er a nd, therefore , w as not objectionable. E ve n if the ins tr uc tio n c anbe r eg ar de d a s a bur de n- shi ft ing ins tr uc tio n in viol at i o n o f Sand

str om a nd F

ranc is , the e rror in this case w as ha rm le ss . Se e R ose v . Clark, 478 U
. S. 570 , 106 S. Ct
. 3101 (1 986)
. T he ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce a ga ins t pe tit ion er sho w ed tha t he w en t t o th e Ne lson hom e w ith Giles for the purpose of robbing th em . He wa s arm ed w itha gun an d, w he n the gun pro ve d unusa ble , he sta

bbe d th e N el sons m ultip le tim es with a butcher knife retrieved from their kitchen. T here31

can be no r ea sona

ble doubt tha t pe tit ion er a ct ed w iththe r equis ite m al ic e, that i s, r ec ogni tio n th at he a ct ed w ith out le ga l j ust if

ic at io n or extenuation
. As the m alice instruction cons tituted h arm less error, co unse l’ s fa ilure to obj ec t to it doe s not unde rm ine co nf ide nc e in the outcom e of petition er’ s trial; his trial rem ained fundam entally fair, de spi te thi s e rr or . T hus, w ith out pr ej udi ce , the re w as no i ne ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ounsel , a nd p et iti one r is n ot e nti tle d to r el ie f on this c l a i m. D istri ct Co urt R ec or d V ol. 2, T ab 27, p. 85- 87. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t tri al c ouns el di d no t r en de r ine ff ec tiv e
as sis tanc e by fa ili ng to obj ec t to the j ur y ch ar ge on m al ic e. T he tr ia l co urt’ s c ha rg e
on m al ic e m eant an in te nti ona l ki lli ng. A s t he sta te appe llate c ourt no te d, “ the pr ed ic at e fa ct

sup portin g th e pr es um

pti on is Jone s’ s inte nti ona l and unl aw fu l ki lli ngs of the victim s.” Jones , 753 So. 2d at 1188
. Furtherm ore, even if the instruction was
er ro r, an y er

ro r w as ha rm le ss in lig ht of the ove rwhe lm ing ev ide nc e of Jone s’ s gu ilt
. Se e R ose v . Clark, 478 U. S. 570, 106 S. Ct. 3101 (1986). In Y at es v . E va tt , 5 0 0 U.S . 3 9 1 , 1 1 1 S. Ct . 1 8 8 4 , 1 8 9 2 (1 9 9 1 ), t h e S up re me Co urt des cri be d th e na tur e of the harm le ss e rr or

a na ly sis w hic h m

ust be appl ie d to Sand str om e rr or s: To say th at an err or did not contribute to th e verdict is .
. . to find that er ro r uni m portant i n r el at ionto ev er ythi ng e lse the j ur

y c onsi de re d on the issue in q uestion , a s re v ea led in the record. T hus, to say that an ins tr uc tio n to appl y

a n unc onst itu tio na l pr es um pti on did not

c ontri but e to t he ve rd ic t i s to m ak e a j udgm en t a bout the sig nif

ic an ce of theWe acknowle dg e that the Supre me Court has disapprove d of some of the Y ates 2 languag e, but the Y

ates harmless e rror

analy sis remains applica

ble. See Ste vens v . Zant , 968 F.2d 1076, 1086 n.12 (11th Cir. 1992). 32 presum ption to reasonable j urors, w hen m easured agains t the other ev ide nc e co nsi de re d by

tho se j ur or s in de pe nde ntl y of the pr es um

pti on. 111 S. Ct
. a t 18 93. T he Co urt the n se t f or th tw o di sti nc t ste ps for

the r ev ie w ing 2
cou rt t o follow in perform ing th is analy sis: first, the court m ust analy ze the j ury in st ru ct ion s, appl y ing the c ust om ar y pr es um pti on tha t j ur or s f

oll owins tr

uc tio ns; second, the cou rt m

ust we igh the probative force of the evidence actually considered by the jury ag ai ns t t he pro ba ti ve for ce o f th e pre su m pt io n s ta nd in g a lo ne . Id

. T he Co urt the n no te d th at

c onc lus ion s of

harm le ss e rror are not

appr opr ia te sim

ply be ca use the re is ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce of the de fe ndant’ s gu ilt
. T his ove rwhe lm ing
ev ide nc e m

ust ha ve be en co ns id er ed

by the j ur y . T hus, ar ev ie w ing c ourt m ust de te rm ine “ w he the r the f or ce of the e vid en ce pr es um ab ly c onsi de re d by

the j ur y in
ac co rd an ce w iththe ins tr

uc tio ns i s so ove rwhe lm ing a s to lea ve it be y ond re as ona ble doub t tha t the ve rd ic t r es tin g onthat evide nc e w oul d have be enthe sa m e in the absence of the presum

ption .” Id

. a t 18 93- 94. W ei ghi ng the pr oba tiv e fo rc e of the e vid en ce of

gui lt ag ai ns t the pr oba tiv e fo rce of the pr es um

pti on s tandi ng a lon e, the re is no d oubt in our m ind s th at

the
ve rd ic t r es tin g ontha t e vid en ce woul d have be enthe sa m e in the abse nc e of the33

pr es um pt io n. Se e id. T he j ur

y co nsi de re d th e te sti m ony of the sur viv ing vic tim s, a nd Jone s’ s c onf

es sio n to his pa rti ci pa tion inthe c ri m es . Jon es a cknow le dge d th at he
we nt to th e N elsons’ hom e arm ed with a gun w ith the intent to rob the victim s. Jones adm itt ed tha t he sta

bbe d the vic tim s m

ult ipl e tim es w ith a but ch er kni fe
. Jon es a lso
ac know le dge d th at

one of the c hil dr en be gge d him to stop , an d that the f em al e vic tim
m ove d be fo re he sta

bbe d he r. T he re c an be no doub t tha t “ the ve rd ic t re sti ng o n [ thi s] evidence would have been the sam e in the absence of the presum ption .” Id

. a t 40 5, 11 1 S . Ct. at 18 93 -9 4. Ther efore, we conclude that Jon es cannot establish that his coun sel we re deficient for f

ailing to objec t to the trial cou rt’ s instructio n or that counsels ’ failure to o bj ec t t o th e ins tru ct io n under m ine d c onf

ide nc e in the out co m e of his tr ia l. A cc or din gly , Jon es is not e nti tle d to r el ie f on this cl ai m of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of
co un se l. C. Appellate counsel The district court inclu ded within the COA the issue of whether Jones received ineffec tive assistance of ap pellate cou nsel because cou nsel failed to raise on appeal
a ch al le nge to tr ia l c ouns el s’ f ai lur e to o bj ec t t o th e tr ia l co urt’ s m al ic e ins tr uc tio n. Neit he r Jo ne s n orth e St at e br ie fed th is is su e or arg ue d it be fo re th e co ur t. Thu s, we de em th e arg um en t ab an do ne d. Se e M are k v. Sin gle tar

y , 62 F.3d 12 95 , 12 98 n.234

(11th Cir. 1995 ) (“ Issues not clearly raised in the briefs ar e considered abandoned.”);
se e also A cc es s No w, I

nc . v . Sou thw es t A irl ines, Co

. , 385 F. 3d 13 24, 1330 (11t h Cir. 2004 ) (“ If

a n arg um en t i s no t f

ul ly b rie fed (le t a lon e not pr es en te d a t a ll) to the Cir cu it Co urt, e va lua tin g it s m er its w oul d be im pr ope r both be ca

use the appe llants
m ay c ontro l the iss ue s th ey

r ai se on a

ppe al an d bec au se the ap pe lle e w oul d have no op po rtu ni ty to re sp on d t o i t.”)
. H ow ev er , e ve n if w e co nsi de re d the iss ue , w e w oul d not gr an t Jone s r el ie f on thi s c l a i m . A s w e s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , J o n e s ’ s t r i a l c o u n s e l w e r e n o t i n e f fe ct ive in f a i l i n g t o o b

j e c tt o t h e m a l i c e j u ry

i n s t r u c t i o n . T h u s , i ti s a fo rti ori t h at J o n es ’s ap pe ll at e co un se l was no t i ne ffec ti ve in fai li ng to rai se th e is su e o n app eal
. D. R ac ial

ani m us Jones cont ends that Boles harbored racial anim ositytowar d him that infected his en tir e re pr es en ta tio n of Jone s an d de pr ive d Jone s of his S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t to e ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of co unse l. O ur re vie w of the re co rd ind ic at es tha t Jo ne s di d not r ai se thi s c la im

a s aspe ci fi c, e num er at ed cl ai m of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of
co unse l i n hi s f

ed er al ha be as pe tit ion
. I nst ea d, he r ef er en ce d th e issue in the intro duc tor

y portio n of

his f ed er al habe as pe tit ion
. A ddi tio na lly , Jon es did not r ai se thi s a s an enum er at ed cl ai m of ine ff ec tiv en es s in s ta te c ourt i n hi s R ule 32 p et iti on. Ra the r, dur ing the Ru le 32 he ar ing , Jone s pr es en te d te sti m ony f ro m A nn G raha m , the35

le ga l se cr et ar

y f or Jon es ’ s po st- co nvi ct ionc ouns el , tha t B ole s to ld h er in a phon e
co nve rs at ionsom ethin g to the e ff ec t of “ tha t ni gge r is go in g to f ry . ” R. V ol. 2, p. 378. I n hi s “ Pr opos ed

F ind ing s of

F ac t and C onc lus ion s of L aw s” fi le d onMay 14, 1 9 9 6 , a ft ert h e t ri al co u rt co n du ct ed t h e Ru l e 3 2 h ea ri n g , J o n es s t at ed t h at “ [i ]n additio n, attorney

Boles’ general r acial attitudes and, specifica lly , his ra cial attitudes
as to his c lie nt, the P et it io ne r, f at al ly im pa ir ed his abil ity

to pr ovi de e ff

ec tiv e
as sis tanc e of co unse l. ” R. V ol. 4, p. 233
. O n a ppe al of the tr ia l c ourt’ s de nia l of his
m otion for post-conviction relief , Jones asserted that “ the root of his ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claim s is what he say s are B oles’ s racist view s.” See Jones , 753 So . 2dat 1 18 2. Th e s e g en er al re fe re n ce s t o a “cl ai m ” o f i n ef fe ct i v en es s b as ed o n Bo l es ’s alleged racia l anim ositydo not fairly present the claim to the courts. A lthou gh Jon es presented lim ited testim ony on this allegation in hi s Rule 32 proceeding, m entioned it br ie fl y in his pos t- Ru le 32 f

ili ngs, a nd n ote d th e al le ga tio n inhis intro duc tor y a nd
co nc lus or y portio ns o f his state appe llate br ie f, the re is ab sol ute ly no d isc uss ionby
an y state c ourt of

the a lle ga tio n. T he sta te tr ia l co urt did not ad dr es s it in its Ru le 32
or de r be ca

use Jon es did

not r ai se the a lle ga tio n inhis Ru le 32 p et iti on. N or did the sta te appe llate c ourt re vie w the m er its of thi s “ cl ai m ” be ca

use Jon es did

not r ai se it
as a d i s cr et e c l ai m

o f i n ef fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce o f co u n s el o n ap p ea l fr o m t h e t ri al co u rt ’s36

de nia l of his Ru le 32 p et iti on. R athe r, the state appe llate c ourt m ad e one state m en t
m en t i o n i n g J o n es ’s as s er t i o n t h at t h e r o o t o f h i s i n ef

fe ct i v en es s cl ai m s wa s Bo l es ’s
ra ci al a nim osi ty
. B ec au se thi s “ cl ai m ” w as not fa ir ly pr es en te d to the state c ourts, it is pr oc edur al ly defau lt ed , se e P ic ard v. Co nnor , 404 U
. S. 270, 275, 92 S
. Ct
. 509 , 512 (1 97 1) , a nd we wil l no t co ns id er i t. Se e Te ague v . L ane , 489 U
. S. 288, 297 -9 8, 109 S. Ct. 1060 , 1068-69 (1989 ). A pe tit ion er

m ay obt ai n fe de ra l re vie w of

apr oc ed ur al ly de fa ult ed c la im if he
can sh owboth c au se f

or the de fa ult an d act

ua l pre j udi ce re sul tin g fr om

the de fa ult
. W ainwrig ht v. Syk

es , 433 U
. S. 72, 97 S
. Ct
. 249 7 ( 1977 ). A ddi tiona lly , in
ex tr ao rd inary

c as es , af ed er al c ourt m ay gr an t a ha be as pe tit ionw ith out

asho w ing of
cau se an d p reju di ce t o c o r rect a fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. See M urra y v. Carrier , 477 U. S. 478, 106 S. Ct. 263 9 (1986). Jones has not attem pted to m eet either
ex ce pti on. Furthe rm or e, w e de cl ine to co nsi de r the m er its of thi s cla im be ca use Jon es did not c le arly pr es en t this iss ue to the dis tr ic t c ourt a s aspe ci fi c, e num er at ed c la im of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el
. A s agene ral r ule , w e w ill not

a ddr es s is sue s or arg um en ts on ap pe al th atwere n ot fai rly pres en te d t o t he di st ric t c o ur t. De pree v. Th om as , 946 F. 2d 78 4, 793 (11th Cir. 1991).We note that in addition to his reque st for re lief fr om his conviction and sentenc e, Jones 3 urg es this court to rema

nd his case w ith directions that the district court c onduct an e videntiary hear ing on his menta l health claims. Jones is not entitled to an evidentiar y hear ing be cause he had ample oppor

tunity to develop the f

actua l basis of this claim in state court. See28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e )( 2) ; se e als o Ke lle yv . S e c ’y De p’ t of Cor r. , 377 F.3d 1317, 1337 ( 11th Cir. 2004). 37 A ssu m ing the iss ue w as pr ope rl y be fo re us f

or c onsi de ratio n, w e w oul d conclude that the claim

is wi t h o u t m erit. Boles’ s alleged racia l rem arks occurre d alm ost 13 y ears a fter Jones’ s tr i al . Jones d id not present any evidence that Boles
m ade any rac ist statem ents to Jones during his represe ntation
. Ther e is no evidence that Boles ever m ade a der ogatory rac ial rem ark to Jones. The a lleged racial r em ark
wa s m ade to a legal secr etary , not to Jones, and the alleged com m ent was m ade af

ter Bo le s’ s r ep re se nta tio n of Jon es . T he re is no e vid en ce to supp ort Jo ne s’ s a lle ga tio n tha t B ole s’ s a lle ge d r ac ist a tti tud e tow ar d him af

fe ct ed Bo le s’ s r ep re se nta tio n to the
ex te nt tha t Jo ne s w as de nie d the ri ght to co unse l guarante ed by the S ixth A m en dm en t. A c c o r d i n g l y, J o n e s i s n o te n t i t l e dt o r e l i e f o n t h i s c l a i m.

V. C ONC LUS ION
. 3 Jones has n ot sho wn that his counsel rendered ineffective assis tance to him at ei the r his tr ia l or

se nte nc ing
. Jon es c anno t es ta bl ish tha t i n li ght of a ll the circum stances, his cou nsels’ perform ance was o utsid e the w ide range of profe ssion al
co m pe te nc e. Jon es a lso c an not e sta bli sh tha t hi s c ouns el s’ a lle ge d de fi ci en t38

pe rfo rm an ce p reju di ced th e o ut co m e o f hi s t ria l o r s en te nc in g. Acco rd in gl y , we affir m the district court’ s judgm ent deny ing Jo nes habeas relief
. AFFIR MED.