FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT August 11 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15724

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 0 3 8 7 - CV- UN GA RO- BE NA GES M A N U E L V A L L E , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y F O R T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , F lo r id aD e p a rtm e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A ugus t11, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

M a nue l V a l l e appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus. W e a dd re ss the fol l ow i ng i ss ues: (1) w hether V a lle w a s d e n ie d th e e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l a t r e s e n te n c in g d u e to c o u n s e ls ’ p r e s e n ta tio n o f m o d e l p r is o n e re v id e n c e ; ( 2 ) w h e th e rV a lle ’s r ig h ts un der B at

son v. Kentucky , 47 6 U . S . 79 , 10 6 S . C t . 17 12 , 90 L . E d. 2d 69 (198 6), w e r e v io la te d ; ( 3 ) w h e th e rV a lle ’s r ig h ts u n d e rth e F if th a n d F o u rte e n th A m en d m en t s w ere v i o l at ed w h en th e tri al co u rtd en i ed h i s m o t i o n s t o su p p ress i ncri m i nat i ng st at em ent s; and (4) w hether V al l e w as deni ed D ue P roce ss and E qu al P r ot e c t i on ba s e d on the m a nne ri n w hi c h the j ury w a s s e l e c t e d. A f t e ra r gum e nt a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s a n d th e r e c o r d , w e a f

f i rm. I. F acts an d P roce d u ralH i st ory T he fa ct s of thi s c as e, as sum m ar i ze d b y the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rt , ar e a s fo l l o w s: O n A pr i l 2, 19 78 , O f f i c e r Loui s Pe na of the Cor a l G abl es P ol i ce D e pa rtm e ntw a s on pa tr ol w he n he s t oppe d appe l l a nta nd a com pani on for atra ff i c vi ol at i on . T he event s that f o ll o w ed w er e w i tness ed by O ff

i ce r G ary S pel l , al so of the C oral G abl es P o l i ce D epartm ent . O ff

i ce r S pel l t es ti fi ed thatw hen h e arr i ved atthe sc ene, ap p e lla n t w a s s ittin g in th e p a tr o l c a rw ith O f f ic e rP e n a . S h o rtly t he r e a f t e r , Sp e l l h e a r d Pe n a u s e h i s r a d i o t o ru n a l i c e n s e c h e c kon t he car app el l antw as dri vi ng . A cc ordi ng t o S pel l , ap p el l antthen w al ked back to h is car and re ac hed i nt o i t , approached O ff i ce r P ena a nd fi re d a s i ng l e s ho tathi m , w hi ch re sul t ed i n h i s dea th. A p p ellantal so fi re d tw o s h o ts a t S p e ll a n d th e n f le d . H e w a s p i c k e d u p t w o d a y s la te rin D e e r f ie ld B e a c h .In Skipper , the Supreme Court he ld that the exclusion from the sentencinghearing of 1 testimony reg ardingpetitioner’s g ood behavior duringthe seven months he spent in jail awaiting trial deprive d petitioner of his right to present re levant mitigation evidence . 476 U.S. at 4, 106 S. Ct . at 1671. 3 V a lle v . S ta te , 47 4 S o. 2d 79 6, 79 8 (F l a. 19 85 ) ( V al le I I ). O n A pri l 13 , 19 78 , V al l e w as i nd i ct ed for the fi rs tdegree mu rderof P ena, th e att em p t ed fi rstd eg ree m u rd er o f S p el l , an d th e p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n . V a lle v . S ta te , 3 9 4 So . 2 d 1 0 0 4 , 1 0 0 5 ( Fl a . 1 9 8 1 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( V al le I ) . A t tr ia l, w h ic h b e g a n o n M a y 8 , 1 9 7 8 , th e ju ry f o u n d V a lle g u ilty o f

a ll c r im e s c h a r g e d . Id . at10 06 . T he j ury r ec om m ended a sent ence of death, w hi ch th e tr ia l c o u rt f

o llo w e d . Id . V a lle th e n ap p e a le d h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d d e a th se nt ence , and the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtre vers ed hi s c on vi ct i on s i n 1 98 1 aft er f i ndi ng tha tV a l l e w a s de ni e d hi s r i ghtt o e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l w he n he w a s r e q u ir e d to g o to tr ia l w ith in 2 4 d a y s a f te rh is a rr a ig n m e n t. Id . a t 1 0 0 5 . A f t e rr e m a nd, V a l l e w a s a ga i n c onvi c t e d of f i r s tde gr e e m ur de r , r e c e i ve d a d e a th s e n te n c e , a n d ap p e a le d . V al le I I, 4 7 4 So . 2 d a t7 9 8 . Th e Fl o r i d aSu p r e me C o u rt a f f irm e d h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e , id . , b u tth e U n i t e d St a t e s Su p r e me C ourts ubs e que nt l y va c a t e d j udgm e nta nd r e m a nde d the c a s e t o the F l or i da S up re m e C ou rti n l i gh tof Ski ppe rv . South C ar ol i na , 476 U . S . 1, 106 S . C t . 1669, 90 L . E d. 2d 1 (19 86 ). V al le v . Flor i da , 476 U . S . 1102, 106 S . C t . 1943, 90 L . E d. 1 2d 35 3 (19 86 ) (V

al le I II ) .4

O n r e m a n d , th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t V a lle w a s e n title d to re se nt enci ng because he w as previ ou sl y pre cl ud ed fr om pu tt i ng on the expert t es t i m on y of acl i ni ca l psyc ho l og i stand tw o correc t i on s c on sul t ant s t o sho w that V al l e w ou l d b e am od el pri soner i n the future, i n v i ol at i on of Ski pp er . V al le v . S ta te , 50 2 S o. 2d 12 25 , 12 25 -26 (F l a. 19 87 ) ( per c uri am ) ( V al le I V ) . A t th is r e s e nt e nc i ng, the j ury r e c om m e nde d as e nt e nc e of de a th by e i ghtt o f

our , a nd the c o u rt im p o s e d th e d e a th p e n a lty , f in d in g th a t: “( 1 ) V a lle h a d b e e n p r e v io u s ly c onvi c t e d of

a nothe rvi ol e ntf

e l ony ; ( 2) the m ur de rw a s of al a w e nf

or c e m e nt of f i c e r ; ( 3) the m ur de rw a s f orthe purpos e of

pr e ve nt i ng l a w f

ul a rr e s t ; ( 4) the m urder hi nd er ed the enforce m entof l aw s; and (5) the m urder w as col d, ca l cul at ed and p re m edi t at ed. ” V

a lle v . S ta te , 5 8 1 So . 2 d 4 0 , 4 3 ( Fl a . 1 9 9 1 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( V al le V ) . T he j udge m e r ge d f

a c t or s tw o, thr e e , a nd f

our , a nd tr e a t e d the m a s one a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r . Id . T h e c o u rt d id n o t f in d a n y m itig a tio n . Id . A f te rth is s e n te n c in g , V a lle a g a in ap p e a le d to th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u rt, r a i s i ng anum be rof

c l a i m s , i nc l udi ng hi s c l a i m tha tdur i ng j ury s e l e c t i on, the j udge fa i l ed t o h ol d an adequ at e i nq ui ryi nt o the st at e’ s per em pt ory c hal l enges of bl ac k v e n ir e m e m b e r s . Id . T h e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u rt r e je c te d h is c la im s , a n d V a lle a g a in ap p e a le d to th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u rt, w h ic h d e n ie d c e rtio r a r i. V a lle v . Flor i da , 50 2 U . S . 98 6, 11 2 S . C t . 59 7, 11 6 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (19 91 ) ( Va l le VI ) .5

H e the n f

i l e d am ot i on f

orpos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f unde rF l or i daR ul e of C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 3 .8 5 0 . V a lle v . S ta te , 70 5 S o. 2d 13 31 , 13 32 (F l a. 19 97 ) ( per curi am ) ( V

al le V II ). T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtre m anded for an evi dent i ary hear i ng on hi s c l ai m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l base d o n h i s a ss ert i on that h is d e f e n s e te a m u n r e a s o n ab ly in tr o d u c e dm o d e l p r is o n e re v id e n c e . Id . a t 1 3 3 4 . A ft erre m and, the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtaf fi rm ed the tri al court ’ s c on cl usi on that hi s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m ba s e d on Ski pp erw a s w ith o u t m e r it. V a lle v . S ta te , 77 8 S o. 2d 96 0, 96 6-67 (F l a. 19 92 ) ( per c uri am ) ( V al le V II I ) . V al l e then fi l ed a pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus i n st at e c ou rt , w hi ch w as d e n ie d . V

a l le v. Mo o re , 83 7 S o. 2d 90 5, 90 6 (F l a. 20 02 ) ( per c uri am ) ( V al le I X ) . H e s u b s e q u e n tly f

ile d ap e titio n f

o rw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s in f

e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rt, w h ic h w a s a ls o d e n ie d . V al le v . Cr os by , 18 F l a . L . W e e kl y F e d. D . 1017 ( 2005) ( V al le X ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d ac e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility w ith r e s p e c t to the f ouri s s ue s out l i ne d above , a nd thi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. II I. S tan d ard of R evi ew V a l l e f i l e d hi s pe t i t i on a f

t e rthe e f f e c t i ve da t e of

the A nt i - T e rr or i s m a nd E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) . T here fore , thi s c as e i s gov erned b y th e p r o v is io n s o f

2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 a s m o d if ie d b y th e A c t. L i ndh v . Mur phy , 52 1 U . S . 32 0, 32 6, 11 7 S . C t . 20 59 , 20 63 , 13 8 L . E d. 2d 48 1 (19 97 ). W i th res pect6

t o cl ai m s a dj ud i ca t ed on the m er i t s, § 2 25 4(d)(1) re stri ct s the i ss uance of habeas re l i ef t o tho se ca se s r es ul t i ng i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt o, or i nv ol vi ng an unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d by the U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u rt. S ec t i on 22 54 (d)( 2) prov i des f or habeas re l i ef

w here the st at e c ou rtdet erm i nat i on “ re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as base d o n an unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ” T h e A E D P A a ls o m a n d a te s d e f e r e n c e to s ta te c o u rt f

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s . U nd er§ 2 25 4(e) (1), a s t at e c ou rt ’ s det erm i nat i on of a f ac tual i ss ue i s pre sum ed c orr e c t . O ne s e e ki ng habe a s r e l i e f m us tr e butthi s pr e s um pt i on by c l e a ra nd conv i nci ng evi dence. § 2 25 4(e) (1). I V . D i s c u s s i on A . I n e f f e c t iv e A s s is t a n c e o f

C o u n s e l V a l l e a r gue s tha thi s 1988 r e s e nt e nc i ng c ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt be c aus e the i rde c i s i on t o pr e s e ntm ode l pr i s one re vi de nc e w a s ba s e d on the m i st aken bel i ef

thatthey w er e r equi re d t o d o so o r the previ ou s dea th sent ence w o u ld b e r e in s ta te d . V a lle a r g u e s th a t a s ar e s u lt o f th e in tr o d u c tio n o f

th is e v id e n c e , th e d o o rw a s o p e n e d to th e S ta te ’s p r e s e n ta tio n o f e v id e n c e th a t V a lle h a d tw ic e a tte m p te d to e s c ap e f r o m p r is o n a n d a n in s tru c tio n to th e ju ry th a t V a lle7

ha d be e n on de a th r ow f ort e n y e a r s . M or e ove r , V a l l e a r gue s tha the c a n s how p r e ju d ic e b e c au s e c o n s id e r in g th e to ta lity o f th e e v id e n c e , c o n f

id e n c e is unde rm i ne d i n the j ury ’ s e i ghtt o f ourde a th r e c om m e nda t i on. See W i l l i am s v . T ay lor , 529 U . S . 362, 375, 120 S . C t . 1495, 1503, 146 L . E d. 2d 389 ( 2000) ( “[ E ]rr o r s th a t u n d e rm in e c o n f id e n c e in th e f

u n d a m e n ta l f

a irn e s s o f

th e s ta te adj ud i ca t i on ce rt ai nl y j ust i fythe i ss uance of” the w ri tof habeas corpus. ). T h e S ta te r e s p o n d s th a t th e s ta te c o u rts f o u n d th a t c o u n s e l m a d e as tr a te g ic deci si on t o p re se ntpri son b ehavi or evi dence because other m i t i gat i on evi dence had p r e v io u s ly f

a ile d to p e r s u a d e th e ju ry o rtr ia l c o u rt n o t to r e c o m m e n d d e a th . A c c or di ng t o the S t a t e , V a l l e ha s f a i l e d t o r e butthe s e f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs by c l e a ra nd c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . See § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . H e r e , th e S ta te a r g u e s , th e r e is a m p le s u p p o rt f o rth e f in d in g th a t th e a tto rn e y s w e r e n o t c r e d ib le . T h e r e f o r e , th e s ta te court s’ appl i ca t i on of Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (19 84 ), w as no tun re as on abl e or c on traryt o cl earl y e st abl i shed f e d e r a l la w . See § 2 25 4(d)(1). T o s how tha tc ouns e l w a s s o i ne f f e c t i ve a s t o r e qui r e r e ve r s a l of the c onvi c t i on, ade f

e nda ntm us ts how tha tc ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nta nd th a t p r e ju d ic e r e s u lte d th e r e f

r o m . Str i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 . T o d o so , a d efen d an tm u stsh o w th atco u n sel co m m i tt ed erro rs th atw ere so8

s e r io u s a s to d e p r iv e th e d e f e n d a n t o f th e c o u n s e l g u a r a n te e d b y th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t a s w e ll a s af a irtr ia l w h o s e r e s u lt is r e liab le . Id . H e r e , th e tr ia l c o u rt f

o u n d th a t “d e s p ite th e irc la im to th e c o n tr a ry , [ c o u n s e l] di d notbe l i e ve tha tthe y w e r e r e qui r e d . . . t o i ntr oduc e e vi de nc e tha tthe de f e nda nt w as , and i n the future, w ou l d b e am od el pri soner, ” butra ther they bel i eved that

“ w i thouta ddi t i ona l m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e , . . . the r e s ul tof the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng w o u ld b e th e s a m e ” a s it w a s in 1 9 8 1 . V al le V II I, 7 7 8 S o . 2 d at 9 6 6 . C o u n se l’ s perf orm ance , there fore , w as re as on abl e and no tdefi ci entun der Str i c kland . T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtagre ed w i th the tri al court ’ s c on clusi on that coun se l ’ s per form ance di d n otconst i tut e def i ci entperf

orm ance and thatV al l e w as un abl e t o sho w prej ud i ce i n l i gh tof the fa ctthatthe tri al courtfoun d n o st atut ory m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s , ga ve l i tt l e w e i ghtt o nons t a tut ory m i t i ga t or s , a nd f ound th r e e “v e ry p o w e r f

u l” a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Id . a t 9 6 7 . In thi s c as e, as the S t at e c orre ct l y poi nt s out , V al l e has fa i l ed t o sho w that the st at e c ou rt ’ s f

ac tual fi nd i ng s w er e i ncorrec tor thati t s l egal det erm i nat i on s w er e u n r e a s o n ab le o rc o n tr a ry to f e d e r a l la w . See § 2 25 4(d)(1). V al l e m er el y r ei t er at es the t e s t i m ony pr oduc e d a tthe e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng tha tthe s t a t e c ourt s a l r e a dy r e j e c t e d. F urthe r , the s t a t e c ourt s ’ c onc l us i ons r e ga r di ng pr e j udi c e w e r e not contraryt o o r an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of Str i c kland , pa rt i c ul a r l y i n l i ghtof the9

abs e nc e of

m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s a nd the pr e s e nc e of thr e e s tr ong a ggr a va t i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T h e r e f

o r e , V a lle ’s in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im is w ith o u t m e r it. B . Ba t s o n C la im V al l e c l ai m s thathi s r i gh t s und er B at s on w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n s i x of the S ta te ’s n in e p e r e m p to ry c h a lle n g e s a t h is r e s e n te n c in g p r o c e e d in g w e r e u s e d to stri ke bl ac k p rospec t i ve j urors. H e s ay s the tri al courtre fuse d t o con du ctan i n q u i ry i n t o h i s B at

s on c la im , r e q u ir in g r e v e r s a l o f h is d e a th s e n te n c e . F urtherm ore, he cont ends thatthe st at e tri al courtnever m ade f i nd i ng s w i th regard t o V a l l e ’ s c l a i m of

di s c r i m i na t i on f

ol l ow i ng the s t a t e ’ s r a c e ne utr a l e xpl a na t i on, and there fore , the cl ai m shou l d b e r evi ew ed de no vo . B ec ause the tri al courtfa i l ed t o ap p l y B at

s on r e a s onabl y , V a l l e a r gue s tha thabe a s r e l i e f i s w a rr a nt e d. T h e S t at e fi rstcl ai m s th atV al l e’ s B at s on cl ai m w as p ro p erl y d en i ed b ecau se it is p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d . See V al le V , 58 1 S o. 2d at43 -44. E ven i f the cl ai m w as notba rr e d, the S t a t e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts t i l l pr ope r l y de ni e d the c l a i m on th e m eri t s. T h e F l o ri d a S u p rem e C o u rtrej ect ed V al l e’ s B at s on c la im b e c au s e , in a d d itio n to b e in g p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d , th e c la im w a s f a c tu a lly w ith o u t b a s is . Id . at 44 n. 4. T he S t a t e c ont e nds tha tthe A E D P A s t a nda r d of r e vi e w i s c orr e c t , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d tha tthe r e j e c t i on of

V a l l e ’ s c l a i m w a s not contraryt o, or an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of B at s on .10

T he F l or i daS upr e m e C ourts um m a r i z e d w ha toc c urr e d a tthe 1988 r e s e nt e nc i ng j ury s e l e c t i on: A f t e rt h e j u ry ha d be e n s e l e c t e d butbe f or e i tha d be e n s w orn, one of V a l l e ’ s a tt orne y s c l a i m e d “ a n i m pr op r i e ty i n the r e c or d” a s t o the s t a t e ’ s u se of

pe r e m pt ory c ha l l e nge s a ga i ns tc e rt a i n j ur or s . T he defe nse a tt orney not ed thatsi x b l ac ks and tw o H is pani cs w er e p e r e m p t o r i l y e x c u s e d b y th e s ta te . T h e ju d g e th e n o b s e rv e d th a t if th e r e w a s ap r o b le m w ith a n y p a rtic u la rju r o rh e w a n te d “ t h e s t a te to be abl e t o r e s pond i n w hi c he ve rm a nne rthe y w i s h. ” O ne of the pr os e c ut or s the n a s ke d t h e j u d g e i f he w a s m a ki ng af

i ndi ng tha tthe s t a t e ha d s om e how i m pr ope r l y e xc us e d j ur or s . T he j udge r e s ponde d, “ I ’ ve be e n a s ke d t o m ak e n o f i ndi ngs a nd I a m m a ki ng no f i ndi ngs but fo r r ec o rd -k ee p in g p u rp o se s s h e h as so m e o bje ctio n to th e s tate’s a c tio n a n d , o f

c o u r s e , I ’m g iv in g th e s ta te a n o p p o rtu n ity to r e s p o n d in tim e .” T h e s t a t e th e n v o lu n ta r ily g a v e its r e a s o n s f o rp e r e m p to r ily e x c u s in g th e e i g h t ju r o r s . A f te rth e p r o s e c u to rf

in is h e dg iv in g h is re as on s f or exerc i si ng the perem pt ory c hal l enges, the defense att orney s ta te d , “ I o b

j ecto n th e b asi s o f [V al l e’ s] S i x th , E i g h th an d 1 4 th am endm entri gh t s, t o the com bi nat i on of the chal l enges f or cause, e i the rpe r e m pt ory c ha l l e nge s l e a di ng t o aj ury tha ti s i n f a vorof the d e a th p e n a lty .” V al le V , 581 S o. 2d a t43- 44. B at s on p r e s c r ib e s ath r e e - p a rt te s t to e v a lu a te e q u a l p r o te c tio n c h a lle n g e s to a prose cut or’ s use of pere m pt ory c hal l enges. 47 6 U . S . at96 -98, 10 6 S . C t . at 1 7 2 2 - 2 4 . F ir s t, th e d e f

e n d a n t m u s t m a k e ap r im af a c ie s h o w in g o f

d is c r im in a tio n . Id . a t96, 106 S . C t . a t1723. N e xt , the S t a t e m us tgi ve ar a c e ne utr a l e xpl a na t i on f o rc h a lle n g in g b la c kju r o r s . Id . at97 , 10 6 S . C t . at17 23 . F i nal l y, the tri al court ha s the duty t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe de f e nda ntha s e s t abl i s he d purpos e f ul11

d is c r im in a tio n . Id . a t 9 8 , 1 0 6 S . C t. a t 1 7 2 4 . H ere, i ti s u n n ecessary to ad d ress th e i ssu e o f th e p ro ced u ral b ar, b ecau se e ve n a s s um i ng the c l a i m i s pr e s e rve d, V a l l e i s note nt i t l e d t o habe a s r e l i e f ba s e d on B at s on . T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtdi d add re ss the m er i t s of the B at s on c l a i m, c onc l udi ng tha tV a l l e f

a i l e d t o s how tha t“ i ti s l i ke l y the c ha l l e nge s w e r e us e d i n a ra ci al l y di sc ri m i nat ory m anner. ” V al le V , 5 8 1 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 n .4 . I n r e a c h in g th is concl usi on , the C ou rtre as on ed that“ [t ] w o b l ac ks se rved as j urors a nd a thi rd s e rv e d a s a n a lte rn a te ,” th e p r o s e c u to r ’s r e a s o n s f o rth e c h a lle n g e s “ap p e a r [ e d ] to be ra ci al l y neutra l , ” and “ V al l e, hi m se l f, i s notbl ac k. ” I d. ( c i t i ng Kib le rv . S ta te , 5 4 6 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 (F l a. 1 9 8 9 )). A tth e t i m e V al l e’ s co n v i ct i o n b ecam e fi n al , th ese r e a s o n s w e r e n o t c o n tr a ry to , n o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w . See § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ). T h erefo re, V al l e’ s B at s on c la im is u n a v a ilin g . C . C o n f e s s io n C la im V al l e argues thatbecause he i nd i vi du al l y and throu gh hi s a tt orney i nv ok ed hi s r i gh t s t o si l ence and t o h ave c ou nsel pres entdu ri ng i nt errogat i on , the tri al court e rr e d i n a dm i tt i ng the s ubs e que nt l y obt a i ne d c onf e s s i ons i nt o e vi de nc e , a nd the s t a t e c ourt s ’ a dj udi c a t i on w a s c ontr a ry t o ora n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of Mi r anda v . A r i

z ona , 38 4 U . S . 43 6, 86 S . C t . 16 02 , 16 L . E d. 2d 69 4 (19 66 ). H er e,12

V a l l e c l a i m s tha the i nvoke d hi s r i ghtt o s i l e nc e a nd hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l w he n he to ld D e te c tiv e W o lf

, a n in te rv ie w in g o f

f ic e r , th a t h e h a d c o n s u lte d w ith ap u b lic de f e nde ra nd tha t“ s he ha d a dvi s e d hi m nott o s pe a k t o a nybody ort o s i gn a ny thi ng. ” F urthe r , the l i e ut e na ntw i th c us t ody of V a l l e w a s i ns truc t e d thr ough c o u n s e l, a n d th e lie u te n a n t a g r e e d , n o t to p e rm it p o lic e o f f ic e r s to q u e s tio n V a lle . V al l e c on t ends thatun der Sa n to b el lo v. N ew Y o rk , 404 U . S . 257, 92 S . C t . 495, 30 L . E d. 2d 42 7 (19 71 ), thi s w as suff i ci entt o i nv ok e the E dw ards v . A r i z ona ru le f o rb id d in g f

u rth e rq u e s tio n in g . See 451 U . S . 477, 482, 101 S . C t . 1880, 1883, 68 L . E d . 2 d 3 7 8 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ( h o ld in g th a t w h e n as u s p e c t in v o k e s th e r ig h t to c o n s u lt w ith a n a tt orne y , the s us pe c ti s nots ubj e c tt o f ur the ri nt e rr oga t i on unt i l c ouns e l i s m a de av ai l ab l e). V al l e ci t es R om i ne v . H e ad , 2 5 3 F .3 d 1 3 4 9 , 1 3 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , in s u p p o rt o f

h is c o n te n tio n th a t w e m u s t r e v ie w h is c la im in v o lv in g h is r ig h t to silen ce d e n o v o b ec au se th e F lo rid a S u p re m e C o u rt d idn o t ad d re ss V alle’s a r g u m e n t o n th is p o in t. T he S t at e r es po nd s thatthe confes si on cl ai m w as prop er l y deni ed. A ft er c o n d u c tin g a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g , th e tr ia l c o u rt f o u n d V a lle n e v e ra s s e rte d h is r i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e ntort o ha ve c ouns e l pr e s e nt , e i the rhi m s e l f orthr ough the p u b lic d e f

e n d e r . T h e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u rt r e a c h e d th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n s . A c c or di ng t o the S t a t e , the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y appl i e d the A E D P A s t a nda r d of13

rev i ew an d d et erm i n ed th atV al l e h ad n o treb u tt ed th e p resu m p t i o n o f co rrectn ess a f f or de d s t a t e c ourtf

a c tua l f i ndi ngs a nd tha tthe s t a t e c ourt ’ s c onc l us i ons w e r e not c o n tr a ry to o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f f e d e r a l la w . I n thi s c a s e , the r e w a s a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng w he r e the tr i a l c ourthe a r d the t e s t i m ony of

the publ i c de f

e nde r , W ol f

, a nd othe rpa rt i c i pa nt s i n the a rr e s ta nd in te rr o g a tio n o f

V a lle . T h e tr ia l c o u rt f o u n d th a t V a lle n e v e rto ld th e p u b lic defe nd erthathe i nt ended t o i nv ok e hi s r i gh t s t o si l ence and cou nsel , thatW ol f w as u n a w a r e th a t V a lle h a d s p o k e n to a n a tto rn e y u n til a f te rV a lle h im s e lf

a d v is e d h im of thi s f a c tdur i ng the i nt e rr oga t i on, a nd tha tV a l l e ’ s s t a t e m e ntt o W ol f w a s tha the ha d s poke n w i th the publ i c de f e nde rw ho ha d t ol d hi m nott o s a y a ny thi ng ors i gn a n y th in g . T h e tr ia l c o u rt f u rth e rf o u n d , a s am a tte ro f

la w , th a t “a t n o tim e d id [V al l e] everas se rthi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s t o rem ai n si l entor t o h ave c ou nsel p r e s e n t o rin a n y w a y in v o k e a n y o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts u n d e r. . . Mi r anda . . .,” th a t “th e d e f

e n d a n t n e v e rin te n d e d to a n d d id n o t in v o k e h is r ig h ts to r e m a in s i l e nta nd t o c ouns e l thr ough [ the publ i c de f e nde r ] , ” a nd tha tV a l l e ’ s “ s ubs e que nt w r itte n w a iv e ro f

h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts w a s f r e e ly , k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily e xe c ut e d by . . . V a l l e , a nd tha the f r e e l y a nd vol unt a r i l y f

i r s ts poke w i th D e t e c t i ve W ol f and then free l y and vo l un t ar i l y m ade aform al w ri tt en confess i on . ”14

T h e F l o ri d a S u p rem e C o u rtfo u n d th atV al l e w ai v ed h i s Mi r anda r i ght s a nd d id n o t s u b s e q u e n tly in v o k e th e m . V al le I I, 4 7 4 S o .2 d at 7 9 8 -9 9 . V alle’s s t a t e m e nttha thi s l a w y e rha d a dvi s e d hi m nott o s i gn a ny thi ng ora ns w e ra ny que s t i ons w a s , the F l or i daS upr e m e C ourts a i d, a tbe s te qui voc a l , a nd a s s uc h, in te rr o g a tin g o f

f ic e r s w e r e p e rm itte d to c la r if y V a lle ’s w is h e s . Id . at 7 9 9 . V alle’s st at em entthathe had severa l experi ence s w i th p ol i ce offi ce rs i n the pastand that he had coo pera t ed i n the pastand w as w i l l i ng t o d o so o n thatocca si on show ed that V al l e v o l u n t ari l y w ai v ed h i s Mi r anda r ig h ts . Id . F urther, on l y the defendantm ay in v o k e th e r ig h t to c o u n s e l. Id . T h e F lo rid a S u p re m e C o u rt co n clu d ed th at V alle’s

“ st at em ent , com bi ned w i th the previ ou s ora l w ai ver, a l at erexpres s w ri tt en w ai ver, and the fa ctthatatno t[s i c] t i m e bef ore, du ri ng , or af

t erqu es t i on i ng di d [V al l e] r e que s ta n a tt orne y , c onvi nc e s us tha the m a de avol unt a ry , know i ng a nd i nt e l l i ge nt w ai v er o f h i s Mi r anda ri gh t s. ” Id . I n Mi r anda , th e S u p rem e C o u rtreco g n i zed th atan accu sed h as a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtnott o be c om pe l l e d t o m a ke i nc r i m i na t i ng s t a t e m e nt s dur i ng the pr oc e s s of

i nt e rr oga t i on. 384 U . S . a t467, 86 S . C t . a t1624. B e c aus e “ [ t ] he c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g in - c u s to d y in te rr o g a tio n c a n o p e r a te v e ry q u ic k ly to ov erbearthe w i l l of on e m er el y m ade a w ar e of hi s pri vi l ege” agai nstcom pu l sory se l f- i ncri m i nat i on , a s uspecti n cust od y a l so has the ri gh tt o con sul tw i th cou nsel15

p r io rto a n d d u r in g q u e s tio n in g . Id . at46 9, 86 S . C t . at16 25 . T he defendantm ay w ai ve the pri vi l ege a gai nstse l f- i ncri m i nat i on , bu tthe prosecut or m ustshow that th e w a iv e rw a s v o lu n ta ry , k n o w in g , a n d in te llig e n t. Id . a t 4 7 5 , 8 6 S . C t. a t 1 6 2 8 . H e r e , w h ile it is n o t d is p u te d th a t V a lle in f o rm e d W o lf

th a t h e h a d s p o k e n to a n a tt orne y a nd tha t“ s he ha d a dvi s e d hi m nott o s pe a k t o a nybody ort o s i gn a n y th in g ,” it w a s n o t u n r e a s o n ab le n o rc o n tr a ry to p r e c e d e n t f o rth e s ta te c o u rts to co n cl u d e th atth i s w as n o tan i n v o cat i o n o f V al l e’ s Mi r anda r ig h ts . Se e , e .g ., T hom ps on v . W

ai nw r i ght , 6 0 1 F .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 1 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) ( r e q u ir in g o f f ic e r s to se ek cl ar i fi ca t i on of the suspec t ’ s w i shes w hen the suspec t ’ s s t at em ent s are a m b ig u o u s ) , ab roga ted by D avis v . U ni ted Stat es , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 5 2 , 4 5 9 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 2 3 5 0 , 2 3 5 5 , 1 2 9 L . E d . 2 d 3 6 2 (1 9 9 4 ) (cl ari fyi n g th ata su sp ectm u st u n a m b ig u o u s ly a s s e rt th e r ig h t to c o u n s e l in o r d e rto s to p in te rr o g a tio n u n til coun se l i s a vai l abl e) . T hi s i s f urther but tre ss ed by V al l e’ s s t at em entthathe had a lw a y s c o o p e r a te d w ith p o lic e a n d h is e x e c u tio n o f aw r itte n w a iv e ro f

h is Mi r anda r ig h ts . T h e s ta te c o u rts a ls o r e a s o n ab ly r e je c te d V a lle ’s c la im s th a t h is a tto rn e y in v o k e d h is r ig h ts to s ile n c e a n dto c o u n s e l f o rh im . See M

oran v. B ur bi ne , 475 U . S . 412, 433 n. 4, 106 S . C t . 1135, 1147 n. 4, 89 L . E d. 2d 410 ( 1986) (e xp l ai ni ng thatthe pri vi l ege a gai nstcom pu l soryse l f- i ncri m i nat i on can o nl y be16

in v o k e d b y th e d e f

e n d a n t) . T h e r e f

o r e , V a lle ’s c la im s b a s e d u p o n th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s d o n o t w a rr a n t h ab e a s r e lie f . D . C om p osi ti on of G ran d an d P et i t Ju ri es V al l e nextcl ai m s thatthe grand j ury thati nd i ct ed hi m , as w el l as al l other grand j uri es dat i ng back t o 1 97 1, w er e s el ec t ed fr om veni re s c ho se n i n a w aythat re sul t ed i n a gross und erre pres ent at i on of L at i ns i n v i ol at i on of the E qu al P r o te c tio n C lau s e . C as tane da v . P ar t i da , 430 U . S . 482, 493, 97 S . C t . 1272, 1279, 51 L . E d. 2d 49 8 (19 77 ). H e a l so cl ai m s thatthe process for s el ec t i ng pet i tj uri es sy st em at i ca l l y e xcl ud ed di st i nct i ve grou ps i n the com m un i ty and there by vi ol at ed th e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e . Se e , e . g. , T ay lorv . L ouis i ana , 4 1 9 U . S. 5 2 2 , 5 3 8 , 9 5 S. C t. 6 9 2 , 7 0 2 , 4 2 L . E d . 2 d 6 9 0 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; A lex ande rv . L ouis i ana , 405 U . S . 625, 630- 31, 92 S . C t . 1221, 1225, 31 L . E d. 2d 536 ( 1972) . H e r e , the s t a t e c ourt s a nd the d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t V a lle f a ile d to p r o v e th a t “L a tin s ” w e r e a n id e n tif iab le m in o r ity a n d d e n ie d h is r e q u e s ts f o ra n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . B e c au s e h is c o n te n tio n th a t L a tin s a r e ac o g n iz ab le m in o r ity h a s n o t b e e n s u b je c te d to evi dent i ary devel op m ent , V al l e argues thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave grant ed a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. T he S t a t e c ont e nds tha tthe s t a t e c ourt s pr ope r l y de ni e d the s e c l a i m s w i thout g r a n tin g a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g . C as tane da r e q u ir e s ad e f e n d a n t to s h o w th a t a17

gr oup i s ac ogni z abl e c l a s s by de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe gr oup i s “ s i ngl e d outf or d i f f e r e n ttr e a tme n tu n d e rth e l a w s , a s w r i tt e n o ra s ap p l i e d . ” 4 3 0 U . S. a t4 9 4 , 9 7 S. C t. a t 1 2 8 0 . B a s e d o n th e c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s th a t V a lle p r o f f e r e d , th e S ta te ar gu es thatthe st at e c ou rt s di d n otac tun re as on abl y or i n a w aycontraryt o federa l la w in f in d in g th a t V a lle f

a ile d to s h o w th a t L a tin s a r e ac o g n iz ab le c la s s o rin d e n y in g V a lle ’s r e q u e s ts f o ra n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . Se e R o ja s v . S ta te , 288 S o. 2d 23 4, 23 7 (F l a. 19 73 ). F urther, the S t at e s ay s thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed th e ev i d en t i ary h eari n g b ecau se V al l e fai l ed t o d ev el o p th e reco rd as req u i red b y § 22 54 (e ). T o s how avi ol a t i on of

the E qua l P r ot e c t i on C l aus e i n the c ont e xtof gr a nd j ury s el ec t i on , a def

endantm ustdem on stra t e that“ the procedure emp l oyed re sul t ed i n sub st ant i al un derr epre se nt at i on of hi s r ac e or of the i dent i fi abl e group t o w hi ch he bel on gs. ” C as tane da , 430 U . S . a t494, 97 S . C t . a t1280. T o m a ke s uc h a show i ng , a def

endantm ustfi rs tshow thatthe grou p i s a“ re cogn i zabl e, di st i nct cl as s, si ng l ed ou tfor di ff er enttre atm entun der the l aw s, as w ri tt en or appl i ed. ” Id . N e xt , the de f

e ndantm us ts how the de gr e e of unde rr e pr e s e nt a t i on by c om pa r i ng the pr oport i on of

the gr oup i n the t ot a l popul a t i on t o the pr oport i on of the gr oup c h o s e n to s e rv e a s g r a n d ju r o r s o v e ras ig n if ic a n t p e r io d o f

tim e . Id . F i nal l y, a18

sel ect i o n p ro cess th ati s p ro n e t o ab u se o r o n e th ati s n o traci al l y n eu tral su p p o rt s a p r e s u m p tio n o f

d is c r im in a tio n . Id . Th e D u e Pr o c e s s Cl au s e i s v i o l a t e d w h e n p e t i tj u r i e s a r e n o td r a w n f r o m a s o u r c e f a ir ly r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f

th e c o m m u n ity . T

ay lor , 41 9 U . S . at53 8, 95 S . C t . at 7 0 2 . T o p r o v e ap r im af a c ie v io la tio n o f

th e f a irc r o s s - s e c tio n r e q u ir e m e n t, a d e f e n d a n t is r e q u ir e d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t: ( 1 ) th e a lle g e d ly e x c lu d e d g r o u p is “d is tin c tiv e ” in th e c o m m u n ity ; ( 2 ) th e r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f th e e x c lu d e d g r o u p in ve ni r e s i s not“ f

a i ra nd r e a s onabl e ” r e l a t i ve t o the num be rof s uc h pe r s ons i n the c o m m u n ity ; a n d ( 3 ) th is u n d e rr e p r e s e n ta tio n is c au s e d b y th e “s y s te m a tic e x c lu s io n ” o f

th e g r o u p in th e p r o c e s s o f ju ry s e le c tio n . D u ren v. Misso u ri , 439 U . S . 35 7, 36 4, 99 S . C t . 66 4, 66 8, 58 L . E d. 2d 57 9 (19 79 ). H e r e , the tr i a l c ourts um m a r i l y de ni e d V a l l e ’ s m ot i ons t o di s m i s s the i ndi c tm e nta nd t o s tr i ke the pe t i tve ni r e . T he F l or i daS upr e m e C ourta f f i rm e d the deni al of these m ot i on s, concl ud i ng thati n l i gh tof C as tane da a nd D uren , V a lle f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t “L a tin s ” w e r e a n s in g le , c o g n iz ab le g r o u p . V a lle , 474 S o. 2 d at8 0 0 . B o th co u rt s d en i ed V al l e’ s req u est s fo r ev i d en t i ary h eari n g s. B ecau se V al l e att em p t ed t o secu re an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g i n th e st at e co u rt s, V a l l e ’ s f a i l ur e t o de ve l op af

a c tua l ba s i s f

orhi s c l a i m i n s t a t e c ourtdoe s not p r e c lu d e th is C o u rt f

r o m g r a n tin g a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ; see a l so19

B reed lo ve v. Mo o re , 27 9 F . 3d 95 2, 96 0 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ). E ven so, “ no evi dent i ary he a r i ng i s ne c e s s a ry w he r e the pr of f e r e d e vi de nc e w oul d nota f f e c tthe r e s ol ut i on of the cl ai m . ” B o len der v. S i n g leta ry , 1 6 F .3 d 1 5 4 7 , 1 5 5 5 n .9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . T here fore , i n o rdert o o bt ai n an evi dent i ary heari ng , V al l e m ustdem on stra t e that hi s f ac tual al l egat i on s, i f proven, w ou l d i nd i ca t e thatthe st at e c ou rt s a ct ed contrary to , o ru n r e a s o n ab ly ap p lie d , c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f e d e r a l la w w h e n th e y r e je c te d h is E q u a l P r o te c tio n a n d D u e P r o c e s s c la im s . See § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . V a l l e ’ s f a c tua l pr of

f e ri n s t a t e c ourti nc l ude d the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) the D a de C ou nty C om m i ss i on ’ s c re at i on of the D epartm entof L at i n A ff ai rs i n 1 97 3 b as ed on ar e c ogni t i on of

di f f i c ul t i e s e nc ount e r e d by pe opl e f r om C uba , M e xi c o, S pa i n, and o ther L at i n A m er i can cou ntri es w ho do no tspea k E ng l i sh; (2) e xp ert t e s t i m ony tha tL a t i ns di f f e rf r om othe rr e s i de nt s of

D a de C ounty be c aus e of l a ngua ge a nd c ul tur e ; ( 3) a n e xpe rt ’ s c onc l us i on tha tgr a nd j ury ve ni r e s ha d not be e n r a ndom l y s e l e c t e d w i th r e ga r d t o L a t i ns ; ( 4) a nd e vi de nc e tha ts how e d tha tno L a t i n f or e pe r s ons ha d be e n s e l e c t e d t o pr e s i de ove rgr a nd j ur i e s be tw e e n 1967 a nd 1 9 7 7 , a n d th e f

o r e p e r s o n o n th e g r a n d ju ryin d ic tin g h im w a s an o n - L a tin m a le . B e c aus e V a l l e doe s notof f e ra ny e vi de nc e i n s upportof hi s c l a i m tha tw a s not a l r e a dy c ons i de r e d by the s t a t e c ourt s , w e c ons i de rw he the rthe s t a t e c ourt s a c t e d20

contraryt o, or un re as on abl y app l i ed, cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw w hen they r e je c te d h is c la im s . See B ol ender , 1 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 5 n .9 ; see a l so § 2 25 4(d). H e r e , th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n th a t “[ t]h e te rm ‘L a tin A m e r i c a n’ e nc om pa s s e s pe opl e f r om t oo m a ny di f

f e r e ntc ountr i e s a nd di f

f e r e nt cul tural backgrou nd s and att i tud es t o con st i tut e asi ng l e c og ni zabl e c l as s f or equal prot ec t i on anal ys i s” i s notcontraryt o o r an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of C as tane da or D uren . See V

al le I I, 4 7 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 0 ; se e al so U ni ted Stat es v. R odri

gu ez , 588 F .2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) ( s ta tin g th a t ap p e lla n t’s m e r e a s s e rtio n th a t h is st at i st i cs i nd i ca t ed thatthe nu m ber of L at i n regi st er ed vo t er s had m ore than doubl e d s i nc e the m a s t e rj ury w he e l w a s l a s tf i l l e d i ndi c a t e d purpos e f ul di sc ri m i nat i on w as i nsuffi ci entt o sho w that“ pers on s of s uch d i vers e nat i on al ori gi ns as C ub ans, M exi cans, and P uert o R i cans po ss es s s uch si m i l ari nt er es t s that th e y c o n s titu te ac o g n iz ab le g r o u p . . . .” ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ) . T h e r e f o r e , V a lle is note nt i t l e d t o habe a s r e l i e f on thi s gr ound. V . C on c l u s i on B a s e d upon c ons i de r a t i on of the pa rt i e s ’ a r gum e nt s , br i e f s , a nd the r e c or d, w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of V al l e’ s pet i t i on for habeas re l i ef . AF F I RME D.