2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-3-2008 

# Kind le r v . H orn P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-9010

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Kindle r v . H orn" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 461. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/461P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________________ N os : 03- 9010 & 03- 9011

_____________________ JO S E P H J. K ind ler, A ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l ant

v. M A R T I N H O R N , C om m i s s i oner , Penns y l vani a D epart m ent of C or r ect i ons , *D A V I D D I G U G L I E L M O , Super i nt endentof t he St a t e Cor r e c t i on a l I ns t i tut i on a tG r a t e r fo r d, J O SEPH P. M A Z U R K I E W I C Z , Super i nt endentof the St at e C orr ect i onal

I n s t i tu t i o n a tRo c k v i e w, A ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ees *( A m ended PerC l erk’ s O r derdat ed 1/ 6/ 05

____________________ A p p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C i vi l A ct i on N o. 99- cv- 00161) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J
. C ur t i s J oyner

____________________ A r gued O ct ober15, 20072 B E FO R E : M cK E E , FU E N T E S, and ST A PL E T O N C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember3, 2008)
M A T T H E W C
. L A W R Y , E SQ
. ( A r gued) M A R I A K
. PU L Z E T T I , E SQ
. ( A r gued) S T E P HE N L
. M AR L E Y, E S Q. M AUR E E N K. RO WLE Y, E S Q. T he C urt i s C enter , S uit e 54 5 W est Indepe nd ence S qu are W est Phi l a. , PA 19106- 0000 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l ant
D A V I D C U R T I S G L E B E , E SQ
. ( A r gued) A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t orney T H O M A S W . D O L G E N O S , E S Q
. C hi ef, Feder al L i t i gat i on C h ief o f A p p e a ls RO NAL D E I S E NB E RG , E S Q. D eputy , L aw D i vi s i on L yn n e Ab r a h a m, E S Q. D i s t r i ctA t t or ney T h ree S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l a. , PA 19107- 3499 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ees3 OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. J os eph K ind l erw as s ent ence d t o death aft erbei ng convi ct ed of t he fi r s t degr ee m ur der of D avi d B erns t ei n. A ft er
uns ucce s s ful l yappea l i ng i n s t at e court , K i ndl erfi l ed thi s habea s p e titio n in d is tr ic t co u rt a lle g in g , in tera lia , that the tri al co u rt ’s j ur yi ns t ruct i ons vi ol at ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s pr onouncement i n Mi l l s v. Mar yland , 486 U
. S. 3 6 7 (19 8 8 ) , and thathi s t r i al
c o un sel had been i neff ect i ve d uri ng t he p enaltyph ase of h is t r i al
. T he di s t r i ct court agr eed t hatK i ndl erw as ent i t l ed t o r el i ef
u n d er Mill

s , a n d a l s o c o n c l u d e d th a th e h a d e s t a b l i s h e d two ad d it ion al claim s o f p rose cu toria l m isco n d u ct. T h e c o u rt gr ant ed r el i ef on thos e gr ounds w hi l e de n y i ng hi s r emai ni ng cl ai m s. T he C om m on w eal t h ap pealed, and K i nd l er fi l ed a cross
a p p e a l i n w h ic h h e c h a llen g e d th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h isT he clai m s r ai sed i n the app eal and cross -appeal ar e so 1 c l o s e l yi n t e r t wi n e d t h a twe wi l l a d d r e s s th e v a r i o u s c l a i ms i ssue byi ssue r at her than dis cussi ng the ap peal and cross a p p e a l s e p a r a t e l y. 4 re m a in in g c laim s f

o r re lief
. F o r th e re a so n s tha t f o llo w , w e w ill 1 aff i r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof habe as r el i ef b ased on t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Mill s . W e w i l l r ever s e t he di s t r i ct
cour t ’ s deni al of re l i ef ba s ed on i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el dur i n g t h e p e n a l t yp h a s e o f th e tr i a l
. Be c a u s e we g r a nt K ind l er ’ s r el i ef on hi s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and Mill s cl aim s, w e dec l i ne t o r evi ew hi s cl ai m s of pr os ecut or i al
m isc o n d u c t. U l t i m at el y , w e conc l ude thatK i ndl eri s en ti tl ed t o the h a b e a s r e l i e f t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d , a n d we wi l l a f f i r m. I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound

A . T he C ri m e. In 1 9 8 2 , Jo s e p h K in d ler , S c o tt S h a w , an d D a v id5 B erns t ei n bur gl ar i zed a s t or e i n L ow erM or el and Tow n sh ip, Penns y l vani a. Pol i ce s t opped thei r “get aw ay ” car as theys ped f r o m t h e s c e n e , a n d t o o k S h a w a n d B e r n s t e i n i n t o c u s t o d y. Som ehow , K i ndl erm anage d t o es cape . H ow ever , underpol i ce ques t i oni ng, B erns t ei n i dent i fi ed K i ndl eras t he dr i ver o f the g e taw a yc a r a n d th e m a ste rm in d b e h in d th e b u rg lar y . B e rn ste in al s o offe r ed t o t es t i fyagai ns tboth K i ndl erand Shaw
. A r m ed
w i t h t hi s i nform at i on, po li ce o bt ai ned a w arr antand arr es t ed K i ndl er . T he w arr ant i dent i fi ed B erns t ei n as t he i nform ant , and K i ndl ers ubs quent l yl earned tha t B erns t ei n had bee n gr ant ed im m u n ity so h e c o u ld te s tif ya g a in s t K in d le r. F o llo w in g h is a rre s t, an d su b se q u e n t re lea se o n b a il, K in d ler , alo n g w ith S h a w a n d S h a w ’ s g irlfr ien d , M ich e lle Ra i f e r , d e v i s e d a p l a n t o k i l l Be r n s t e i n i n o r d e r t o s i l e n c e h i m. P u rsu a n t to th a t p lan , R a if e r lu re d B e rn ste in to th e d o o r o f h is ap artm en t i n the e arlym o rnin g h o u rs o f Ju ly2 5 , 1 9 8 2
. K ind ler,6 w h o h a d b e e n ly in g in w a it, a ttac k e d B e rn ste in a n d stru c k h im
ov er the h ead w i t h a b a se b a ll b atapp roxi m at el y20 t i m es. A c tin g o n K in d ler ’s in stru c tio n s, S h a w th e n jab b e d B e rn ste in in t he r i bs w i t h an el ectr i c p rod num er ous t i m es . K i ndl erand S h aw then d rag g ed a n im m o b il ized B ern stei n to R aife r’s wai t i n g c a r , l e a v i n g a 3 0
- f o o ttr a i l o f

b l o o d b e h i n d
. T h e two t hr ew B ern st ei n i nt o t he trunk of the ca rand then dr ove t o t he banks of the D el aw ar e R i ver w her e t hey t ook B erns t ei n fr om t he t runk and thr ew hi m i nt o t he r i ver . M i r acul ous l y , B erns t ei n w as
s t i l l al i ve w hen he w as thr ow n i n to the r i ver . U pon r eal i zi ng t hatt hei rbl ow s had notki l l ed B erns t ei n, K i ndler a n d Shaw
m anage d t o fi l l B erns t ei n’ s l ungs w i t h w at er and t hen theyt i ed
a c in d e r b lo c k a ro u n d h is n e c k to w e ig h h im d o w n . K ind ler, S h aw , an d R aife r then d rov e ba ck to K ind ler’s hom e. T heydi s car ded thei rw eapons and otherphy s i cal evi dence byt hr ow i ng them dow n var i ous s ew eri nl et s al ong the7 w ay . D es pi t e thos e “pr eca ut i ons , ” the pl an b eg an unr avel i ng alm o st i m m e d iatelyb ec au se p o li ce tr ac k ed d o w n R aife r’s b loo d -soa k ed ca r w ith in a f ew h o u rs of

the c ri m e. B ern stei n ’s gi r l fr i end and other s had s een i t dur i ng t he cour s e of t he ki l l i ng. R ai ferconfe s s ed af

t erpol i ce c onfr ont ed her w i t h evi dence t hat t i ed hert o t he as s aul t . I n herconfe s s i on, s he i m pl i cat ed K i ndl er
an d S h aw , an d d ir ec ted p o li ce to the v ariou s sew er inlets w h ere t heyhad t hrow n the evi de nce. To further com pli cat e m at t ers , B erns t ei n’ s bodys ur fac ed the nextday
. D ur i ng a sub seq u ent exami nat i on, pol i ce es t abl i s hed t hat he di ed fr om dr ow ni ng and
m a s s iv e h e a d in

ju ri e s . B . T h e T r ia l a n d K in d le ’s P o s t- V e r d ic t M o ti o n s . K ind ler an d S h a w w ere jointl ytr ied f o r B ern stei n ’s
m ur deri n s t at e cour t , and t he j ury convi ct ed bot h of fi r s t - degr ee
m u rd e r a n d c rim in a l co n sp ira c y . D u rin g th e e n su in g p e n a lty hear i ng, t he j ur yfound tw o aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance sS h a w re c e iv e d a se n ten c e o f life im p riso n m e n t. 2 I n Penns y l vani a, the dea t h s ent ence i s r ece i ved and 3 re c o rd e d b yth e c o u rt a f te r t h e ju ry d e te rm in e s th e s e n te n c e . T h e c o u rt f

o rm a lly im p o s e s th e s e n te n c e s o m e tim e la te r. See 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat . § 9 7 1 1 (g). 8 p e rta in in g to K in d ler ; v iz , h e k ill e d B e rn ste in to p re v e n t h im f r o m te s tif

y in g , s ee 4 2 Pa
. Con s . St a t . § 9 7 1 1 ( d ) ( 5 ) , a n d he
comm i t t ed the ki l l i ng w hi l e perpetr at i ng a fel ony - ki dnappi ng. See 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 9711( d) ( 6)
. A l t hough t he C om m onw eal t h al s o ar gued t hat the “offens e w as comm i t t ed by
m e a n s o f to rtu re ,” 4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 9 7 1 1 (d )(8 ), th e ju ryd id notfi nd t hataggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance . T he j ury fo und no
m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s in f a v o r of K in d ler . T h u s, p u rsu a n t to 4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 9 7 1 1 (c )(1 )(iv ), K in d ler w a s g iv e n th e d e a th penal t y . A ft ert he pena l t yhear i ng, butbefor e t he sent ence w as

2 fo rm al l yi m pos ed, K i ndl erfi l ed pos t - ver di ctm ot i ons w i t h the
a ss ista n c e o f

n e w c o u n se l. 39 O n Sept ember 19, 1984, w hi l e the pos t - ver di ctm ot i ons
w er e pendi ng, K i ndl eres cape d fr om a Phi l adel phi a j a i l w her e he
w a s b e in g h e ld . F o llo w in g th e e sc a p e , the C o m m o n w e a lth i m m ediat el y m ov ed to di sm i ss hi s post -ver dictm oti on s becau se he w as t hen a f

ugi t i ve. T he tr i al cour tgr ant ed tha tm ot i on h o ld in g th a t K in d ler h a d w a iv e d a n yrig h t to h a v e h is p o stv e rd ic t m o tio n s c o n s id e re d b ye s c a p in g . K i ndl er w as eventual l y arr es t ed on new cr i m i nal char ges
as w el l as on i m m i gr at i on vi ol at i ons i n C anada
. H ow ever , s oon
a f ter h is a rre st th e re , h e o n c e a g a in m a n a g e d to e sc a p e . T h is ti m e, h e us ed bed s heet s t o cr eat e a makes hi ftr ope t o es cape fr om t he t hi r t eenth fl oor of t he fa ci l i t yi n M ont r eal w her e he w as bei ng hel d. H e w as captur ed onc e ag ai n i n N ew B runs w i ck C a n a d a in 1 9 8 8
. U po n b eing r eturned t o Phi l adel phi a i n 1991, K i ndl er
m o v ed to reinstate h is po st- v erd ictm o ti o n s ; the tr ial co u rt10 d e n ie d th e m o tio n . C . K i ndl er’ s D i rec t A ppeal and S t at e Post - C onvi ct i on

P roce edi ngs O n O ct ober 3, 1991, t he t r i al cour t form al lyim p os ed K i ndl er ’ s death s ent ence forthe murde rconvi ct i on, as w el l as
a cons ecut i ve t erm of 10 t o 20 y ear s i m pr i s onm entforthe ki dnappi ng, and a c oncurr entt erm of fi ve t o 10 y ear s for
cr i m i nal cons pi r acy . K i ndl erappea l ed ar gui ng t hatt he tr i al
cour ts houl d have a ddr essed the mer i t s of hi s pos t - ver di ct
m ot i ons upon hi s captur e and r eturn t o Phi lade l phi a. T he Super i orC our t r ej ect ed the ar gum entand uphel d hi s convi ct i on
a n d s e n te n c e ; th e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p r e m e C o u rt a f f ir m e d
. See C om m onw ea l th v. K i ndl er , 639 A
. 2d 1 ( Pa. 1994)
. T he Penns y l vani a S u p rem e C our trul ed thatthe tr i al cour thad pr oper l ydeni ed K i ndl er ’ s pos t - ver d ictm ot i ons w i t hout
c o n s id e ri n g th e m e ri ts b e c a u s e o f K in d l e r ’s e s c a p e . I

d. a t 3A t th e tim e o f K in d ler ’s d ire c t ap p e a l, 42 P a . C o n s. S tat. 4 § 9711( h) , t i t l ed “Revi ew of dea t h s ent ence , ” pr ovi ded as foll ow s: (1 ) A se n ten c e o f d e a th sh a ll b e su b

jec t to aut om at i c r evi ew bythe Supr eme C our tof P e n n s y lv a n ia p u rs u a n t to its ru le s . ( 2) I n addi t i on t o i t s author i t yt o corr ecterr or s at t r i al , t he Supr eme C our ts hal l ei t heraff i r m the s ent ence of dea t h orvaca t e the s ent ence of death and r emand forfur t herpr ocee di ngs as p ro v id e d in p a ra g ra p h (4 ). ( 3) T he Supr eme C ourts hal l aff i r m the s ent ence o f d e a th u n les s it d e ter m in e s th a t: ( i ) t he s ent ence of dea t h w as the pr oductof p a ss io n , p re

ju d ice o r a n yo th e r a rb itrar yf a c to r; 11 ( “[T] he ac t i on t aken i n di s m i s s i ng the post
- ver di ctm ot i ons w as
a re a so n a b le r e sp o n se to [ K in d ler ]’s ‘f lo u tin g ’ of

th e a u th o rity
o f th e c o u rt” ). T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e e sc a p e re su lted in K i ndl erw ai vi ng al l cl ai m s of err orand pr es erv ing nothi ng for ap p ea l. N ev erthe less, g iven the de ath sen tenc e , th e co u rt
re v iew e d th e re c o rd a s r e q u ire d b y4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 9711( h) ( 3) , and found no err or . T he C our tt her efor e af fi r m ed 4( i i ) t he evi dence fai l s t o s uppor tthe fi ndi ng of at lea st o n e a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e sp e c if ied in su b sec ti o n (d); or ( i i i ) t he s ent ence of dea t h i s exce s s i ve or d isp ro p o rtio n a te to th e p e n a ltyim p o se d in s i m i l arcas es , cons i der i ng bot h t he ci r cumst ance s of the cr i m e a n d th e c h a ra c te r a n d re c o rd o f th e d e f e n d a n t. ( 4) I f the Supr eme C our tdet erm i nes thatthe death penal t ym us tbe vac at ed bec aus e none of t he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s ar e s uppor t ed by s uffi ci entevi dence orbeca us e the s ent ence of death i s di s pr opor t i onat e t o t he pena l t yi m pos ed i n s i m i l arcas es , then i ts hal l r emand forthe im p o sit ion o f a li fe im p ri so n m en t sen tenc e. If th e S u p re m e C o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e d e a th p e n a ltym u st b e v a c a ted f o r a n yo th e r re a so n , it s hal l r emand fora new s ent enci ng hear i ng p u rsua n t t o su b sec ti o n s (a) thro u g h (g).

12 t he convi ct i on and sent ence . O n O ct ober11, 1994, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdeni ed cert i orari . O n J anu ary11, 1996, K i ndl erfi l ed a pe t i t i on under Penns y l vani a’ s Post
- C onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct ( “PC R A ”) i n w hi ch he as ked the court t o adj udi cat e t he m er i t s of t he cl ai m s he had13 r ai s ed on di r ectappea l
. T h e P C R A cour tdeni ed the pet i t i on
w i t hout a hear i ng beca us e t he P enns y l vani a S upr eme C our thad
a lre a d y ru led th a t K in d ler ’s e sc a p e re su lted in a w a iv e r o f a ll
a p p e llate c laim s h e m a y o th e rw ise h a v e h a d . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C ourts ubs equent l yaff i r m ed, agr eei ng t hatK i ndl er
w a s in e lig ib le f

o r P C R A re lie f
. C om m onw eal th v. K i ndl er , 722 A. 2 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 8 ( Pa
. 1 9 9 8 )
. Th e Cou r t a l s o c o n c l uded t hat K i ndl er ’ s cl ai m s had bee n p revi ous l yl i t i gat ed bec aus e he ha d chal l enged the di s m i s s al of hi s pos t - ver di ctm ot i ons on di r ect appea l
. T he C our t expl ai ned: “[t ] o gr ant[K i ndl er ] the r el i ef he
r eques t s i n hi s PC R A , an evi dent i ary hear i ng on cl ai m s al r eady forfei t ed b yhis fl i gh tfrom capti vity , w ou l d rende r m eaningl ess al l pr evi ous ruli n gs of the tr i al courtand of thi s C our t . ” I d. at 1 4 8
. T h e C o u rtrejected K ind ler’s argu m en t tha t Pe n n sy lvan ia’s

“ re lax e d w a iv e r” d o c trin e p e rm itt e d re v iew o f th e m e rits o f

h is
c laim . A lth o u g h th a t d o c trin e a llo w e d c o u r ts to lo o k p a st a14 pr ocedur al defa ul tand re ach t he mer i t s of cl ai m s i n a ca pi t al
c a se , the C o u rt re a so n e d th a t th e d o c trin e d id n o t ap p lyto K i ndl er beca us e i tw as “hi s ow n actof bec om i ng a fugi t i ve that
re s u lte d in th e f

o rf e itu re o f th e ri g h t to re v ie w o f

th o s e c la im s .” Id
. at148 n. 13. T he C our tdeni ed r ear gum ento n M ar ch 15, 1999. D . K i ndl er’ s D i s t ri ct C ourt H abeas P roce edi ngs O n M ar ch 13, 20 0 0 , K i ndl erfi l ed a c ouns el ed § 2254 habea s pet i ti on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe E a ste r n D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia w h ich h e su b se q u e n tly amended. T he amended pet i ti o n rai s ed el even gr ounds for
re lie f
. See K i nd l er v. H orn , 2 9 1 F
. S u p p . 2 d 3 2 3 , 3 3 7
- 3 8 ( E
. D. Pa. 2 0 0 3 ) ( s u mma r i z i n g th e c l a i ms )
. I n o p p o s i n g r e l i e f , the C om m onw eal t h cl ai m ed t hatt he pet i t i on w as unt i m el y , and that Penns y l vani a’ s fugi t i ve w ai verrul e w as an “i ndepende ntand adeq u at e” s t at e gr ound pr ecl udi ng fede r al habea s r el i ef. T he15 C o m m o n w e a lth a ls o a rg u e d th a t th e c la im s w e re m e ri tle s s . T he di s t r i ctcour tappl i ed st atut ory t ol l i ng and rul ed that K i ndl er ’ s pet i t i on w as t i m el y . T he courtconcl u d ed that K in d ler ’s p e tit io n f

o r re a rg u m e n t b e f

o re th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our t , had t ol l ed the per i od of l i m i t at i on s . T he Supr eme C our tof Pennsy l vani a had de ni ed thatpet i t i on on M ar ch 15, 199 9
. T h e di s t r i ctcour thel d t hatK i ndl erhad one y earfr om t hat dat e t o fi l e hi s habea s pet i t i on. Si nce he fi l ed i ton M ar ch 13, 2000, t he di s t r i ctcourtconcl uded thathi s pet i t i on
w a s tim e ly. K i nd l er v. H orn , 2 9 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 3 3 8 -3 9
. N ext , t he di s tr i ctcour tr el i ed i n par ton D octorv. W alters , 96 F. 3d 67 5 (3d C i r . 1996) , i n r ej ect i ng the C om m onw ea lt h’ s cl ai m of pr ocedur al defa ul t . T her e, w e had h e ld th a t P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s f u g iti v e f o rf e itu re ru le w a s n o t f

irm ly
es t abl i s hed w hen K i ndl erescaped. A ccor di ngl y , “the fugi t i ve f o rf e itu re ru le
. . . [ d id ] n o t p ro v id e a n in d e p e n d e n t an d a d e q u a te16 b a s is to p re c lu d e f

e d e ra l r e v ie w o f

[ K in d le r’ s ] h a b e a s c la im s . . .”
. K i nd l er v. H

orn , 2 9 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 3 4 3
. I n addr es s i ng t he mer i t s of K i ndl er ’ s cl ai m , t he di st r i ct
c o u rt re jec ted a ll o f K in d ler ’s c h a llen g e s to th e g u iltp h a se o f h is t r i al
. H ow ever , t he cour t agr eed w i t h K i ndl er ’ s chal l enge t o t he p en altyp h ase , an d co n clud ed th a t th e tri al co u rt ’s j u ry instruction w as in co n sist en t w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s pr onouncement s i n Mil l s v. Mar yland , 4 8 6 U
. S
. 3 6 7 (19 8 8 ). T he cou rt al so rul ed t hat K i nd l er w as ent i t l ed to r el i ef be cause
o f th e p rose cu tor’s arg u m en t du ri n g the p en altyp h ase . T h e c o u rt concl uded thatt h e pros ecut orhad i m pr oper l yi ntr oduced a n
a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e a n d h a d a lso “ v o u c h e d f o r th e d e a th p e n a ltyw ith re sp e c t to [ K in d le r ]
. . . in v io latio n o f h is rig h ts
un de rt h e Ei g h t h a n d F o u rt e e n t h Ame n d me n t s t o th e U. S. C ons t i tut i on. ” K i nd l er v. H orn , 291 F. Supp. 2d at367. T he C om m onw eal t h appea l ed the or dergr ant i n g a new17 s ent enci ng hear i ng ( C
. A
. N o . 03- 9010) , and K i ndl erappea l ed th e d e n i a l o f re lie f

o n h is o th e r c la im s . (C .A . N o . 0 3 -9 0 1 1 ). T he appe al s w er e cons ol i dat ed, and w e gr ant ed a cert i fi cat e of ap p ea labili tyto K ind ler all o w ing h im to raise c o u n sel’s in e f f e c tiv e n e ss a t se n ten c in g , a n d th e d istric t co u rt’s f a ilu re to i ns t ructt he j ur yt hathe w as not el i gi bl e for par ol e i f s ent ence d to lif e im p ri s o n m e n t. K ind ler v. H o r n , N o . 03- 9011 ( or der
e n te re d O c t. 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ). B efore add res sing the m eri t s of ei t her app eal , w e m ust det erm i ne the thr es hol d pr ocedur al i s s ues , i ncl u di ng w hether Ki n d l e r ’ s h a b e a s p e t i t i o n wa s t i me l y f i l e d
. I f Ki n d l e r ’ s c l a i ms
ar e t i m el yand notdefa ul t ed, w e mustthen det erm i ne w hether t he di str ict courterr ed i n gr ant i ng r el i ef pur s uantt o Mi l l s v. Ma r y la n d
. In a d d it ion , w e m u st de term ine w h ethe r th e c o u rt
err ed i n deny i ng r el i ef on K i ndr ed’ s cl ai m t h at th e tr i al
err oneous l yfai l ed t o i ns t ruct t he j urythathe w as i nel i gi bl e for18 par ol e, as w el l as K i ndl er ’ s cl ai m of i neff ect ive ass i s t ance of
co u n s e l d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t yp h a s e o f h i s tr i a l
. As me n t i o n ed above , w e d ec il n e to a d d ress K ind ler’s pro sec u tori al m i s conduct cl ai m s. II . T im e lin e ss a n d P r o c e d u r a l D e fa u lt T he A nti -T err or i s m , and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ct (“ A E D P A ” ) c re a tes a o n e -y e a r p e rio d o f lim itatio n s f

o r sta te p ri s o n e rs to f

ile f e d e ra l h a b e a s p e t i t i o n s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2244( d) ( 1)
. T he one y earcl ock us ual l ys t art s t i cki ng w hen the t i m e for di r ect r evi ew expi r es . T ypi cal l y , t hati s w hen the U ni t ed S t at es Su prem e C ou rtden i es cert i orari orw hen t he t i m e for
s eeki ng c e rtio ra ri r evi ew expi r es . H ow ever , t he l i m i t at i on p e rio d is to lled w h ile “ a p ro p e rlyf iled a p p lica tio n f

o r S tate p o stc o n v i ct i on orot hercol l at er al r evi ew w i t h r es pectt o t he pert i nent jud g m en t. . . is pe n d ing
. ” 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2 ). K i ndl erand the C om m onw eal t h agr ee thatthe l i m i t at i onK i ndl er ’ s PC R A pet i t i on w as pendi ng as of A pr i l 24, 5 1996, w hen A E D PA beca m e ef fec t i ve, and r emai ned pendi ng a t lea st th ro u g h D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 1 9 9 8 w h e n th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d K in d le r’ s s ta te h a b e a s p e titio n . See 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )(2 ); s ee al s o, B ur ns v. Mor t on , 134 F. 3d 109, 1 1 1 (3 d C ir.1 9 9 8 ); Mille rv . N .J . S ta te D e

p 't o f C o r rs ., 145 F. 3d 616, 617 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng thatforconvi ct i ons that be c a me f i na l pr i ort o AE D PA ’ s e na c t ment , the A ED PA lim itatio n s p e rio d b e g in s o n A E D P A ’s e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

A p ril 2 3 , 1 9 9 6 ).
19 per i od her e w as t ol l ed unt i l atl eas tD ece m b er11, 1998 w hen t he Penns y l vani a Supr em e C our tr ej ect ed hi s appea l of the deni al of PC R A r el i ef. A s n o t ed ea r l i er , t her eaf t er , K i ndl er 5 fi l ed forr ear gum ento f that D ece m ber11 rul i ng, and that pet i t i on forr ear gum entw as notdeci ded unt i l M ar ch 15, 1999. T he part i es di s agr ee about w hether t he fi l i ng per i od w as t ol l ed
w hi l e his p et i t i on forr ear gum entw as pendi ng befor e the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t . I f the p er i od w as nott ol l ed by fi l i ng the pet i t i on forr ear gum ent , K i ndl er ’ s one y earl i m i t at i on per i od expi r ed on D ece m ber 10, 2000, and hi s M ar ch 13, 2000W e r ej ectt he C om m onw eal t h’ s ar gum entthatthe 6 l i m i t at i on per i od w as nott ol l ed fr om D ece m ber11, w hen the t he PC R A pet i t i on w as deni ed t o D ece m ber20 w hen the th m ot i on forr ear gum entw as fi l ed bec aus e ther e w as nothi ng p e n d in g b e f

o re a c o u rt d u ri n g th a t tim e . See Carey v. Saf f old, 536 U
. S. 214 ( 2002) ( pet i t i oner ’ s appl i cat i on w oul d be cons i der ed as pendi ng dur i ng 4 1⁄2 m ont h t i m e betw een de ni al of low er courtpeti t i on and fi l i ng of ap peal of t hat deci si on so lo n g a s th e a p p e a l w a s f ile d in a c c o rd a n c e to s ta te la w .) 20 f e d e r a l h ab e a s p e titio n w o u ld th e r e f o r e b e u n t i m e l y. C o n v e r s e l y, i f t he A E D PA cl ock w as t ol l ed w hi l e t hat pet i t i on w as pendi ng, t he habe as pet i t i on w as t i m el yfi l ed as det ai l ed above
. 6 C ongr es s s peci fi cal l y pr ov ided that t he one y earper i od f o r f ili n g a f e d e ra l h a b e a s p e tit io n is to lled w h ile “ a p ro p e rly fi l ed ap p li cat i on fors t at e pos t - convi ct i on r evi ew orot her
co ll ateral p roc ee d ing is pe n d in g .” 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 4 4 (d)(2 ). A E D PA does not s peci fi cal l y defi ne t hat phr as e orexpl ai n w hat i ti ncl udes
. N evert hel es s , w e have hel d t hatan appl i cat i on for
r el i ef tha t is per m i t t ed unders t at e l aw and fi l ed i n acc or dance
w i t h t he s t at e’ s pr ocedur al r equi r ement s , t ol l s t he fi l i ng per i od21 u n d e r A E D P A
. C om

pa re Lovas zv. V

aughn , 134 F. 3d 146 ( 3d C i r . 19 9 8 ) (a pr i s oner ’ s s econd s t at e habe as pet i t i on t ol l ed the A E D PA per i od of l i m i t at i ons beca us e t he st at e court s perm i t t ed
s ucce s s i ve habe as pet i t i ons , and occ as i onal l ygr ant ed r el ie f on th e se p e tit io n s.); w i th D ou glas v. H orn , 3 5 9 F
. 3 d 2 5 7 (3 d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ) (a n o tice to a p p e a l n u n c pr o t unc di d nott ol l t he l i m i t at i on per i od beca us e P enns y l vani a cour t s do notr ecogni ze nunc pro tunc a p p e a ls a s a p e rm iss ib le a v e n u e f o r p o stc o n v ic tio n re lie f.). T he C om m onw eal t h does n o tdi s put e thatK i ndl er pr oper l yfi l ed hi s m ot i on forr ear gum ent w it h in 14 day s of the deni al o f

r e l i e f , a s r e q u i r e d b ys t a t e l a w. Ra t h e r , the C om m onw eal t h ar gues thatmot i o n s f o rr e ar gum entar e pet i t i ons f o r “ e xtr aord in a ryre lief

,” a n d th e re f

o re n o t en c o m p a ss e d w ith in t he meani n g o f “a pr oper l yfi l ed pet i t i on” underA E D PA
. T he C om m onw eal t h r es t s thi s ar gum enton i t s cont ent i on t hats uch22 pet i t i ons ar e “not favor ed” under Penns y l vani a l aw . A ccor di ng t o t he C om m onw eal t h s uch pet i t i ons ar e an e xcept i onal form of
r el i ef and C ongr es s coul d ther efor e not have i nt ende d t he A E D PA cl ock t o s t op t i cki ng w hi l e s uch a mot i on w as pendi ng. H ow ever , w e have found no Penns y l vani a s t atut e, cas e or
ru l e p ro h ib iti n g m o tio n s f o r re a rg u m e n t an d th e C o m m o n w e a lth d o e s n o t d ire c t u s to a n y . In d e e d , P e n n sy lv a n ia a p p e llate pr act i ce s peci fi cal l ypr ovi des fora mot i on forr ear gum ent , and
s e ts f o rt h th e tim e f

o r f ilin g s u c h a m o tio n . See Pa. R
. A
. P. 2542 ( s et t i ng for t h a 14 dayt i m e l i m i tforfi l i ng a motion for
re a rg u m e n t as w e ll as o th e r p ro c e d u re s f o r su c h m o tio n s); s ee al s o Pa. R
. A
. P. 2543- 2547. M or eover , nots urpr i s i ngl y , capi t al defe ndant s i n Penns y l vani a r out i nel ys eek r ear gum entw hen t h e i rc l a i ms f

o rr e l i e f a r e d e n i e d , a n d t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C o u rt h a s g ra n te d s u c h m o tio n s o n m o re th a n o n e o c c a s io n . See C om m onw eal th v. Sa ra n chak , 810 A
. 2d 1197 ( Pa. 2002) ( on23 r ear gum ent , gr ant i ng r ei ns t at ementof PC R A p et i t i on t hathad b e e n d ism iss e d o n a p p e a l); C o m m o n w e a lth v . Y o u n g, 748 A
. 2d 166 ( Pa. 2000) ( on r ear gum ent , gr ant i ng r el i ef on cl ai m t hatw as d e n ied in o rig in a l d e c isio n ); se e a lso , Lovas zv Vaughn , 134 F .3 d 1 4 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (c o n sid e rin g th e f a c t th a t th e sta te hi s t or i cal l y all o w ed a c ert ai n t ype of f i l i ng i n det erm i ni ng t hat
su ch a f il ing toll s the A E D P A statu te of li m it ati o n s). T h e C o m m o n w e a lth n ev erthe less claim s tha t K ind ler’s
m o ti o n fo r re arg u m en t sh o u ld n o t toll the lim it ati o n p eriod h ere becau se i tw as not nec e ssaryt o ex hau stst at e rem edies
. A cc o rdin g to the C o m m o n w ea lth , o n lyp roc ee d ing s tha t are
r equi r ed t o exhaus ta cl ai m t ol l the l im it ati o n per i od under A E D PA
. T hatar gum ent i s not r oot ed i n the t extof A E D PA or anydeci s i o n of thi s cour tof the Supr eme C our t . R ather , the C om m onw eal t h r es t s thi s ar gum entupon the l ogi c of harm oni zi ng A E D PA ’ s r equi r ement s forexhaus t i on and t ol l i ng.24 T he C om m onw eal t h al s o ar gues t hatt hi s interpr et at i on of A E D PA ’ s one y eart i m e l i m i t pr event s habea s pet i t i oner s fr om t ol l i ng t he l i m i t at i on per i od i ndefi ni t el y w i t h a ser i es of “e xot i c” p e titio n s f

o r “ e x tr a o rd in a ry” re lie f. W e d is a g re e . N othi ng in th e t ext of A E D P A sugg est s that C on gress i nt ended a nys uch l i nkage. T o the contr ary , t hatt extunderm i nes t he C om m onw eal t h’ s at t empt t o r ead e xhaus t i on i nt o t he
s t a tut e ’ s t ol l i ng r e qu i r e ment s . Se c t i on 22 44 c on di t i on s A ED PA to lli n g o n lyu p o n p ro p e rlyf ill in g a n a p p lica tio n f o r p o stc o n v i c t i o n o rc o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w. On c e p r o p e r l yf i l e d , t h e t i me d u ri n g w h ich th e pe ti ti o n is pe n d ing is ex p li cit lytoll ed u n d er § 2244. C ongr es s coul d eas i l y have decl ar ed t hat t he l i m i t at i ons p e rio d w o u ld o n lyb e to lled w h ile a n yp e tit io n re q u ire d to
e x h a u s tc l a i ms i s p e n d i n g i n s t a t e c o u r t . I t d i d n o td o s o , a n d we
ca n n o t am en d the s tatu te byad o p ti n g th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s at t empt t o for ge a non ex ist entl i nk betw een e xhaus t i on andI ndeed, i ti s i r oni c gi ven cons i der at i ons of def er ence and 7 comi t ys o fr equent l yr el i ed upon i n ar gui ng agai ns tfede r al reli ef that the s tat e w o u ld n o w ask u s to ign o re a p roc ed u re p rov ided u n d er state p roc ed u ral l aw an d u ti li ze d b ythe s tat e’s h ig h e st c o u rt. 25 s t atut or yt ol l i ng. 7 M or eover , w e r ej ect ed a s i m i l arar gum enti n Sw egerv. C hes ney , 2 9 4 F. 3 d 5 0 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. Th e r e , we c o n c l u d ed t hatt he pl ai n t extof 28 U
. S. C
. § 224 4 u nderm i nes anypol i cy ju stif ica tio n f o r lin k in g A E D P A ’s to lli n g re q u ire m e n ts w ith its exhaus t i on r equi r ement s . Speci fi cal l y , w e had t o det erm i ne wh e t h e rt h i s t o l l i n g p r o v i s i o n a p p l i e s o n a c l a i mby
- cl ai m b asis, r equi r i ng atl eas tone orm or e of t he i s s ues r ai s ed i n t he s t at e col l at er al pr ocee di ng t o be i ncl uded i n the fede r al habea s pet i t i on, or w hethera s t at e pos t -convi ct i on pr ocee di ng at t acki ng a j udgm entof convi ct i o n t ol l s the per i od of l i m i t at i ons fort he en ti r e habe as pet i t i on a ttac k in g th a t sa m e ju d g m e n t. 294 F. 2d at513. W e hel d that C ongr es s di d not i nt end A E D PA ’ s t ol l i ng26 pr ovi s i on t o be appl i ed on a cas e bycas e bas i s . W e not ed that
ourdeci s i on w oul d have b een the s ame even i f w e fa ct or ed pol i cycons i der at i ons i nt o ouranal y s i s beca u s e s e p a r a t e rul es for t ol l i ng and exha us t i on advanc e, r ather t han r et ar d, the goal s of f e d e ra lis m a n d c o m ity e n s h ri n e d in A E D P A
. Id
. at 51 9 -52 0 (“ th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita t i o n s . . . a n d th e e x h a u s tio n d o c tr in e . . . i m po se ent i rel ydistinc trequi rem ents on hab eas pet i t i on ers ; [al though] bot h m us tbe s at i s fi ed be fo r e a f eder al cour tm ay
cons i dert he mer i t s of a pet i t i on. ”)
. M ai nt ai ni ng t he di s t i nct i on
encour ages habea s p et i t i oner s t o ut i l i ze a l l avenue s forr evi ew
a u th o riz e d u n d e r s ta te law b e f o re se e k in g h a b e a s re lief in f e d e ra l c o u rt . I

d. M or eover , w e ar e s i m pl ynoti m p resse d bythe C o m m o n w e a lth ’s c o n c e rn th a t h a b e a s p e tit io n e rs m a ye n d les sly
e x ten d A E D P A ’s o n e y e a r f ili n g d e a d lin e b yre so rtin g to e x o tic
or “extr aor di nary ” st at e pet i t i ons . T hatt heor et i cal conce r n, not27 e xe mpl i fi e d he r e , do e s no tj us t i fyt he fo r c e d r e a di ng of A ED PA
re q u ir e d b yth e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s p o s itio n .

B . P r o c e d u r a l D e fa u lt A s not ed above , the Penns y l vani a court s appl i ed Penns y l vani a’ s fugi t i ve for fei tur e rul e and c oncl uded that K i n d l e rwai v e d h i s r i g h tt o s e e k a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. Th e yth us d ism iss e d h is a p p e a ls w ith o u t re a c h in g th e m e rits o f a n yo f h is claim s. A s a m att er o f c o m ityan d fe d era li sm , a f ed era l cou rt cannotrul e on the mer it s o f a ha beas pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s w hen a st at e cour t has found s uch cl ai m s t o be pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed p u rsu ant t o an i nd epen den tand adeq uate s t at e proced ural rule
u n les s th e p e tit io n e r sh o w s c a u se a n d p re ju d ice f o r th e d e f

a u lt. S ee D o ctorv. W

a lters , 9 6 F. 3d 675, 683 ( 3d C i r . 1996)
. T he di s t r i ct cour t r eas oned t hat , i n t hi s cas e, Penns y l vani a’ s fugi t i ve for fei tur e doctr i ne di d n o t p rec l ude r evi ew of the mer i t s of K i ndl er ’ s cl ai m s . W e agr ee.28 A s t at e pr ocedur al rul e pre cl udes fede r al habea s r evi ew
o n lyif it is “ f irm lye sta b lish e d ” a n d “ c o n sis ten tlya n d re g u lar ly
a p p lie d ” b yth e s ta te ’s c o u rt s . See J ohns on v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 486 U
. S
. 5 7 8 , 5 8 7 (19 8 8 ); se e a lso Fo rdv . G e o rg ia , 498 U
. S. 411, 423- 24 ( 1991) ( s t at e pr ocedur al rul e mustbe “f i r m l yes t abl i s hed
an d reg u larl yfo ll o w ed ” to b ar f ed era l hab ea s rev iew ). In addi t i on, the s t at e rul e musts peak i n unm i s t akabl e t erm s , and t he s t ate co u r t s ’ r efus al t o r evi ew a pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m m us tbe
c o n s is te n t w ith d e c is io n s i n s im ila r c a s e s . See D octorv. W a lte rs , 96 F. 3d at 683- 684 ; N eel y v. Zi m m er m an , 858 F. 2d 1 4 4 , 1 4 8 (3 d C ir.1 9 8 8 ). A p ro c e d u ra l ru le th a t is c o n sis ten tly appl i ed i n t he vas tm aj or i t yof ca s es i s adequa t e t o barfede r al hab eas r eview even i f st at e cou rt s ar e w i l l i ng t o o ccasi o n a lly
over l ook i tand r evi ew the mer i t s of a c l ai m forr el i ef w her e the
ru le w o u ld o th e rw is e a p p ly. Id
. Fur t herm or e, t he adequa cyof t he rul e i s det erm i ned byt he l aw i n eff ectatt he t i m e of the29 as s er t ed w ai ver , notw hen the pet i t i oners ubs equent l ys eeks
re v iew in f

e d e ra l co u rt. See D octor , 96 F. 3d at684. D e sp ite th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s e f f o rts to d istin g u ish th is
cas e, o u ranal y s i s of K i ndl er ’ s pr ocedur al defaul ti s contr ol l ed byouranal y s i s i n D octor . T h ere , w e h eld th at P en n sy lv a n ia’s fu g it i ve for fei tur e rul e di d notbarfede r al habea s r evi ew as ap p li ed to D o c to r, a h ab ea s p eti ti o n er w h o h ad , li k e K ind ler,
e sc a p e d . D o c to r e sc a p e d in 1 9 8 6 d u rin g a lu n c h re c e ss o f h is cri m i nal t r i al , butt he tr i al r es um ed af t erthe r ece s s and he w as convi ct ed in a b se n tia . I d. at678. Fi ve y ear s l at er , aft erhe w as
c a p tu re d a n d se n ten c e d , h e a p p e a led . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts appl i ed the fu gi t i ve for fei tur e rul e and r efus ed t o cons i dert he
m e ri ts o f

h is a p p e a l. I

d. O n fede r al habea s revi ew , t he C om m onw eal t h ar gued thatthe s t at e court s ’ appl i cat i on of the f u g i t i v e w a i v e rd o c t r i n e p r e c l u d e d f e d e r a l h a b e a s r e l i e f
. We d isa g re e d b e c a u se th e ru le w a s n o t b e in g c o n sis ten tlyo r stric tly30 a p p lie d w h e n D o c to r e s c a p e d in 1 9 8 6
. Id
. at 6 8 4- 686. A ft er
s ur ve y i n g d e c i s i o n s o f

Pe n n s y l v a n i a c o u r t s we c o n c l u d e d t h at P e n n s yl v a n i a c o u r t s h a d d i s c r e t i o n t o h e a r a n a p p e a l f i l e d b y a fugi t i ve w ho had been r eturned t o cus t ody befor e an appea l w as i n i t i a te d o r d is m is s e d
. Id
. a t6 8 6
. Acc o r d i n g l y , t h e f u g i t i ve fo r fei tur e rul e w as not“fi r m l yes t abl i s hed” a nd ther efor e w as
n o t an in d e p e n d e n t an d a d e q u a te p ro c e d u ra l ru le s u f f icie n t to b a r re v iew o f

th e m e rits of a h a b e a s p e tit io n e r in f e d e ra l co u rt. H e re , K in d ler e sc a p e d f ro m c u sto d yin 1 9 8 4 w h ile h is pos t - ver di ctm ot i ons w er e pendi ng. K i ndl er , l i ke D o ctor , w as
r etur ned t o cus t odybefor e anydi r ectappea l of hi s convi ct i on or sent ence w as i nit i at ed. T he C om m on w eal t h seeks t o d i st i ng uis h D oct orbeca us e K i ndl er ’ s es cape r es ul t ed i n t he di s m i s s al of pos t - ver di ctm ot i ons thatw er e pendi ng w hen he e sca p ed. T he C om m onw eal t h cont ends thatthe di s m i s s ed pos t- v er di ct
m ot i ons w er e anal ogous t o a di s m i s s ed appe al
. T her efor e,31 ar gues t h e C om m onw eal t h, the s t at e appe l l at e court s had no
m or e di s cr et i on t o r e- i ns t at e Ki ndl er ’ s pos t - ver di ctm ot i ons than t heyhad t o r ei ns t at e a di sm isse d appea l
. D es pi t e i t s fac i al appea l , w e ca nnotagr ee w i t h t hi s i nt erpr et at i on of D octor . I n C om m onw eal th v. G al l ow ay , 333 A
. 2 d 7 4 1 (P a. 19 7 5 ),
as d isc us s ed i n D octor , the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt
r e- i ns t at ed s uppl ement al po st - ver di ctm ot i ons thathad bee n d ism iss e d p u rsu a n t to th e f u g iti v e f o rf e itu re ru le. T h e c o u rt d id
s o beca us e once t he def endantw as appr ehende d, he w as
r etur ned t o t he j ur i s di ct i on of the cour t , and w oul d ther efor e be
r es pons i bl e for , and s ubj ectt o, t he court ’ s j udgm ent
. G al l ow ay t hus under s cor es a cr i t i cal di s t i nct i on betw een di s m i s s ed pos t - ver di ctm ot i ons and a di s m issed fi nal appea l
. T hat di s t i nct i on ar i s es fr om t he fac t t hat aft eran appe al i s di s m i s s ed,
a c o u rt n o lo n g e r re tain s ju risd ictio n . H o w e v e r, ap p e llate c o u rts
ca n ex erc ise j u ri sd ict ion af ter po st- v erd ictm o ti o n s are32 di s m i s s ed, and t hey t her efor e ca n exer ci s e di s cr et i on t o hearthe
c la im s o f d e f e n d a n t’ s a p p e a l. T h u s , G al l ow ay f a tallyu n d e rc u ts t he C om m onw eal t h' s at t empt t o di s t i ngui s h K i ndl er ’ s s i tuat i on fro m D o ctor’s b ase d u p o n d iffe ren ce s in the p roc ed u ral po sture
a t th e tim e o f

th e ir re sp e c tiv e e sc a p e s. W h e n K in d ler e sc a p e d in 1 9 8 4 , G al l ow ay h a d n o t b e e n o v e rru led . A c c o rd in g ly , the sta te t r i al court st i l l had di s cr et i on t o r ei ns t at e hi s pos t - ver di ct
m o ti o n s. A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n c lud e tha t, u n d er D octor , Penns y l vani a’ s fugi t i ve w ai ver l aw di d not pr ecl ude the di s t r i ct
co u rtfro m rev iew ing the m erit s o f the c lai m s raised in K ind ler’s habea s pet i t i on. I I I . K in d le r ’s C la im s . W e re v iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s reso luti o n o f K ind ler’s cl ai m s de novo
. See D uncan v. Mor t on , 256 F. 3d 189, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. W e do not appl y t he defe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew
o t h e r wi s e a p p l i c a b l e u n d e rAEDP A b e c a u s e Ki n d l e r ’ s c l a i ms33 h a v e n e v e r b e e n “ a d

ju d ic a te d o n th e m e ri ts ” in s ta te c o u rt s . See B ronshtei n v. H

orn , 4 0 4 F
. 3 d 7 0 0 , 7 1 0 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). A . Mil

l s v. Mar yl and K in d ler c o n ten d s th a t h is s e n ten c e w a s im p o se d in
v i o l a t i o n o f

t h e Ei g h t h Am e n d me n t , a s c o n s t ru e d i n M il l s v. Mar yland and B o y d e v . C a lifo r n ia , 494 U
. S. 370 ( 1990)
. M o re
s peci fi cal l y , K i n d l ercont ends thatt he j uryi ns t ruct i ons and
ver di cts l i p cr eat ed a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatt he j urybel i eved itco u ld o n ly c o n side r m it igating circu m stan ce s tha t j u rors unani m ous l y agr eed upon. T he di s t r i ctcourtagr eed a nd gr ant ed a condi ti o n al w r i tr equi r i ng the C om m onw eal t h t o ei t her conducta new s ent enci ng hear i ng orcaus e K indl ert o be
s e n te n c e d to lif

e im p ri s o n m e n t. I n Mil ls v
. Mar

yland , the Supr eme C our thel d thatthe C o n stitu tio n p ro h ib its a sta te f ro m re q u ir in g ju ro rs to unani m ous l yagr ee upon t he exi s t ence of a pa r t i cul arm i t i gat i ng34 ci r cumst an ce befor e w ei ghi ng t hatci r cumst ance agai ns tany aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s dur i ng the penal t y phas e of a c api t al trial. T h e C o u rt ill u stra ted w ith a “ d istu rb in g sc e n a rio ” w h e re in el even j ur or s agr eed upon a m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance but
co n c l u d e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t c o n s i d e r i t b e c a u s e a 1 2 j ur or th d is a g r e e d t h a t it e x is ts . Mills , 4 8 6 U .S . at 3 7 3 . T h a t sin g le j ur or ’ s vi ew of t he fac t s w oul d r es ul ti n the dea t h penal t ybei ng i m pos ed des pi t e the w i l l of the over w hel m i ng m aj or i tyof the ju ro rs. E q u a lly d istu rb in g to th e C o u rt w a s the p o ss ib ili ty th a t all t w el ve j ur or s w oul d eac h fi nd a m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance , butnot be abl e t o agr ee on the exi s t ence of anyone “mi t i gat or . ” Such
a ju ryw o u ld a lso re c o m m e n d a se n ten c e o f d e a th b e c a u se it
w oul d erro n eous l yconcl ude thatt her e w as nothi ng t o w ei gh
a g a in s t th e a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t m a ye x is t. Id
. T he C our t t hus concl uded t hat t he E i ghth A m endmentr equi r es t hat j ur or s b e a l l o wed t o c o n s i d e ra n ya n d a l l mi t i g a t i ngK in d le r’ s c o u n s e l o b je c te d to th is c h a rg e o n th e re c o rd
. 8 J oi ntA ppendi x ( “J A ”) , 204- 205. 35 c ir c u m s ta n c e s w ith o u t th e re q u ir e m e n t o f u n a n im ity. Id
. at384. A ccordi ng l y , a death sent ence m ustbe v acat ed if th e re i s a
su b sta n tial p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e ju ry c h a rg e c a u se d a re a so n a b le j ur ort o bel i eve thatm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s can notbe
cons i der ed unl es s al l j ur or s agr ee on the exi ste nce of t he
m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e . I d. T he Supr em e C o u rtl at ercl ar i fi ed Mill s i n B oyde v
. C a lifo r n ia
. I n B o

y d e , t he C our texpl ai ned thatt he i nqui r yunder Mill s w as w h ethe r “the re i s a reaso n ab le li k eli h o o d that the ju ry has appl i ed the cha l l enged i ns t ruct i on i n a w ay t hat pr event s the
cons i der at i on” of r el evantm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s thatthe d e f e n d a n t p ro f

f e re d
. H er e, t he c o u r t ’ s i ns t ruct i on att he begi nni ng of the penal t yphas e i ncl uded the fol l ow i ng expl anat i on: 8T he s econd t i m e thatthe j udge r ead the i ns t ruct i ons , he 9 r emoved t he w or ds “i n t hatl i s t ” and a dded a f i l l erphr as e; “ w h ich y o u h a v e se e n ,” s o th a t th e in stru c tio n s re a d : 36 N ow , t he aggr avat i ng ci r cu m st ance s m us tbe pr oved bythe C om m onw eal t h bey ond a reas on able dou bt. M i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances m ust be prove d byt he def

endantbya pr eponder ance of th e e v id e n c e . A p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e is s om ew h at l es s pr oof than i s r equi r ed for re a so n a b le d o u b t. N o w , the v e rd ict m u st b e a se n ten c e o f d e a th if t he j ur yunani m ous l yfi nds atl eas tone a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e sp e c if ied in th a t li st, s ubs ect i on “D ” and no mi ti gat i ng ci r cumst ance s o r i f th e juryu n an im o u sly f ind s o n e o r m o re aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s w hi ch outw ei gh any m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances. T he ver di ctm us tbe a s ent ence of l i fe im p riso n m e n t in a ll o th e r ca se s. T h e c o u rt m a yin i t s di s cr et i on di s char ge the j uryi f i ti s of the o p in io n th a t f

u rth e r d e lib e ra tio n w ill n o t re su lt i n a un anim ou s agreem ent as t o the sent enc e , in w hi ch ca s e the courts hal l s ent ence the def endant t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . T he cour t s hal l i ns t ructt he j ur y on any other m att er s t hat m ay be j us tand p ro p e r u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . . . . J A 73- 74 & 196- 97. 9N o w , the v erd ictm u st be a se n tenc e o f d ea th if the jury unani m ous l yfi nds atl eas tone aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s peci fi ed s ubs ect i on “D , ” w hi ch y ou have s een a nd no m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s ori f the j ur yunani m ous l yfi nds one orm or e aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s w hi ch outw ei gh anym i t i gat i ng ci rcum st ances. J A 1 9 7
. 37 M or eover , t he ver di cts l i p r ead: W e, t he j u ryempanel ed i n the above ent i t l ed ca s e, h a v in g h e re to f

o re d e ter m in e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t is g u ilty of m ur deri n t he fi r s tdegr ee, do her ebyfi nd: A G G RA V A TI N G CI RC U M STA N CE ( S) T he vi ct i m w as a fi r eman, peac e off i cer , or publ i c s ervantconce r ned i n offi ci al det ent i on w h o w as k il led i n t he p erf o rm an ce o f h is du ti es () T he defenda nt pai d or w as pai d byanother p e rso n o r h a d c o n tra c ted to p a y o r b e p a id byanotherper s on or has cons pi r ed t o pay orbe pai d by another per s on fort he ki l l i ng o f th e v ict im ( ) T he v i c t i m w a s b e i n g h e l d b ythe defe nd an t f

or r ansom or r ew ard, or as a38 sh iel d o r ho stag e ( ) T h e d e a th o f

th e v ictim o c c u rre d w h ile defe ndant w as engage d i n the hi j acki ng of an aircraf

t ( ) T he vi ct i m w as a pros ecut i on w i t nes s t o a m ur derorot herfel on ycomm i t t ed bythe defe nd a n t an d w as ki l l ed fo r the p urpose of pre vent i ng hi s t es t i m onyagai ns tthe defe ndanti n anygr and j uryorcr i m i nal p roc ee d ing inv o lving su ch o ff en ses ( ) T h e d e f e n d a n t co m m itt e d a k ill in g w h ile in the p erp etrati o n o f a fe lon y( ) I n the comm i s s i on of the off ens e the def e nd a ntkn owi ng l yc r e a t e d a gr a ve r i sk O f dea t h t o anotherper s on i n add i t i on t o the vict i m of the off ense ( ) T he off ens e w as comm i t t ed by m ea n s o f to rtu re ( ) T he def endanthas a s i gni fi cant hi s t or y of

f e l o n yc o n vi ct i ons i nvol vi ng t he us e or t hr eatof v iolen ce to the p erso n ( ) Th e d e f e n d a n th a s b e e n c o n v i c t ed39 of anotherFeder al or St at e off ens e, comm i t t ed ei t her befor e or atthe t i me o f t h e o f f e n s e a ti s s u e f

or w hi ch a sen tenc e of l i fe i m pr i s o n me n t o r deat h w as i m pos abl e orthe def

endantw as under goi ng a s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entforanyr eas on att he t i m e of t h e com m i s s i on of the o ff en se ( ) M I T I G A T I N G CI RC U M STA N CE ( S) T he def endanthas no s i gni fi cant h i s t o r y o fp r i o r c r i m i nal co n v ict ion s ( ) T he defen dantw as undert he i nfl uence of extr eme m ent al or em o ti o n al disturb an ce ( ) T he cap aci t yof the defe nd ant t o a p p re c ia te th e c rim in a lityo f h is conductort o conform hi s conduct t o t he r equi r ement s of l aw w as su b stan ti all yim p aired ( ) Th e a g e o f t h e d e f

e n d a n ta tt h e t i me o f th e c ri m e ( )40 Th e d e f e n d a n ta c t e d u n d e re x t r e me dur es s , al t hough not s uch dur es s as to c o n stitu te a d e fe n se to pr os ecut i on underSect i on 309 ( r el at i ng t o du res s ) , oract ed under t he s ubs t ant i al dom i nat i on of an o ther p erso n ( ) T he vi ct i m w as a part i ci pant i n t he de f e n d a n t ' s h o mi c i d a l c o n d u c tor co n sen ted to the h o m ici d al ac ts ( ) T he defenda nt ' s par t i ci pat i on i n t he hom i ci d al actw as r el at i vel ym i nor ( ) Anyo t h e re v i d e n c e o f mi t i g a t i on co n ce rnin g the c h ara cter an d r ecor d of t he de fe n d an t and t he circu m stan ce s o f h is of fe n se ( ) T he ag gravat i ng ci rcum st a nce(s) out w e i g h t he mi t i gat i n g circu m stan ce (s) Y E S ( ) N O ( ) W e t h e j u r yr e n d e rt h e f o l l o wi ng se n ten c in g v e rd ict: D E A T H ( ) L IF E IM P R IS O N M E N T ( )41 J A 2 1 3 -1 5
. I n addi t i on, t he fol l ow i ng exch a n g e o c c u rr e db etw een the
cour tand the j ur yfor eper s on w h en the juryr eturned t o as k a qu est i on du ri ng deli berat i on s: J U R Y FO R E PE R SO N : D o w e have t o appl yany chec km ar ks bes i des t he aggr avat i ng and m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s o n th e f in a l sh e e t? W hatI ’ m s ay i ng, i s t hatt h ere ’ s a pol l t aken a nd say w ere usi ng al l 10 qu est i on s, y ou kn ow , j ust f o r e x a m p le, a n d th e re ’s q u ite a p o ss ib ili tyth a t all 12 peo ple w ou l d p i ck all 10
. D o y ou w a n t a chec km ark o rdo y ou w anta numberbes i de t hos e? T H E C O U R T : I ’ l l j us t r ead t he i ns t ruct i ons fr om t he l aw and then I ’ l l ans w ery ourq u esti on. T he v erd ict m u st b e a sen tenc e of d ea th i f t h e jury unani m ous l yfi nds atl eas tone agg r avat i ng ci r cumst ance t hat ’ s s peci fi ed i n s ubs ect i on D and n o m it igating circu m stan ce s o r if the ju ry unani m ous l yfi nds one orm or e aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s w hi ch outw eigh anym i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . T he ver di ct m us t be a s ent ence of lif e im p ri s o n m e n t in a ll o th e r c a s e s . In o ther w o rds, th e o n ly o n es that y o u w o u ld m ark42 off a nd r epor t w oul d be [the ones ] t hat al l of y ou had agree d upon. A r e ther e anyfur t her qu est i on s? J U R Y FO R E PE R SO N : Y ou don’ tw anta number t her e; y ou j us tw anta che ckmar k. T H E C O U R T : A c h e c k m a rk
. J A 1 9 8 -2 0 0
. T he j udge’ s ans w er s t hus exac erbat ed the Mill s pr obl em t hatal r eadyi nfec ted the j ury ’ s del i ber at i ons bas ed upon the
m i s l eadi ng and a m b igu ous w or di ng of the j urychar ge. T hat ch arg e c learlycre ated a re as o n ab le l ikeliho o d that the ju rors
m ayhave be l i eved t hatt heycoul d onl ycons i dert he mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s t hat they unani m ous l y agr eed upon. T he lan g u a g e q u o ted a b o v e in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t: “ the verd i ctm ust be a s ent ence of

death i f the j ur y unani m ous l

y f i nds atl eas tone aggr avat i ng ci r cum s tance . . . and no m i t igat i ng ci r cum s tances
or i f th e j u r y u n a n i mou s l

y f i n d s o n e o rmor e a g

g r a v a t i ngI n A bu- Jam al , w e re jected the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s 10 c o n ten tio n th a t o u r d e c isio n u p h o ld in g th e c h a rg e in Ze ttle m o y e rv . Fu lc o m e r, 923 F. 2d 284 ( 3d C i r . 1991) pr ecl uded a Mill

s v io la tio n in th a t c a s e . See Zet t l em oyer , 923 F
. 3d at30 8 (uph oldi ng charge instruct i ng the juryt o im po se death i f theyunani m ous l yagr ee a nd fi nd thatthe aggr avat i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s o u tw e ig h th e m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s .). 43 c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h o u tw e ig h a ny m itig a tin gc ir c u m s ta n c e s .” T h u s, “ u n a n im o u s” m o d if ies “ f in d s” a n d c re a tes a re a so n a b le l i kel i hood t hatt he j ur or s err oneous l ybel i eved thatm i t i gat i ng
a n d a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m s ta n c e s b o th h a d to b e u n a n im o u sly agr eed upon. N ow her e w er e the j ur or s t ol d t hatth eyonl yhad t o unani m ous l yagr ee o n aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s and not
m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s, o r th a t th e re q u ire m e n t o f u n a n im ity di d notappl yt o anym i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance thatanyj ur orm ay h a v e f o u n d b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . T h is c o n c lu sio n is c o n sis ten t w ith o u r rec e n t h o ld in g in A bu -Jam al v. H

orn , 5 2 0 F. 3d 272 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , as w el l as ot hercas es w her e s i m i l ari ns t ruct i ons w er e gi ven. See Albr echt 1044 v H orn , 471 F. 3d 435 ( fi ndi ng a Mi l l s vi ol at i on, butvaca t i ng the di s t r i ctcou rt ' s o r d e rg r a n t i ng habea s r el i ef a ft erappl y i ng Teague
v. Lane ); B an ks v H

orn , 27 1 F. 3d 527 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , r ev' d on
o t h e rg r o u n d s b y B ear d v. B anks , 5 4 2 U .S . 4 0 6 (2 0 0 4 ); Fr ey v . Fulcom er, 1 3 2 F .3 d 9 1 6 , 9 2 3 -2 4 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 7 ). I n addi t i on, as w e have j us texpl ai ned, t he conf us i on w as ampl i fi ed by t he cour t ’ s excha nge w i t h t he j uryfor eper s on w hen th e ju ry re tu rn e d to a s k a q u e s tio n d u ri n g d e lib e ra tio n s . Fi nal l y , t he err orw as fur t herexac erbat ed byt he w or di ng of t he ver di ct s l i p . U n li k e H a c ke tt v . P r ic e , 381 F. 3d 281 ( 3d. C i r . 2004) , w her e the ver di cts l i p es t abl i s hed thatt he j uryagr eed that there w ere n o m it igating circu m stan ce s, the v erd ict sli p h ere offe r ed no di r ect i on r egar di ng how fi ndi ngs w er e t o be m ad e. M or eover , no boxes w er e che cked. T hi s m aym ean thatno j ur or f o u n d a n ym iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e a s th e C o m m o n w e a lth
ar gues . H ow ever , i ti s equal l yl i kel ythat juro r s coul d notA l t hough ourconcl us i on thatthe di s t r i ctcour tdi d not 11 err in g ran ti n g reli ef

u n d er Mill

s is i tsel f su ff

ici en t t o af

firm t he condi t i onal w r i tt hatthe di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed and de ci de K i nd l er’ s appea l , w e t hink i ti m po rt ant t o als o d i scuss K i ndl er ’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el dur i ng the penal t yphas e bec aus e of the i m por t ance of the i s s ue t o our j ur i s prudence , t he gr avi t yof the cons equenc e of the al l eged defici ency , and t he n eed to provide gu i dan ce i n fu ture cases. 45 unani m ous l yagr ee on a ny p art i cul arm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance even though one orm or e j ur orw as convi nced a m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance had bee n es t abl i s hed, and thatthe j uryas s um ed t hat t he m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ance cou l d no t be w ei gh ed b ecause
o f th e lac k o f u n an im ity . A cc o rdin g ly , the d istr ic t cou rt p rop erlyg ran ted re li ef

u n d er Mill

s . B . I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel 11 K indl eral s o cont ends thathi s at t orney ’ s per form ance dur i ng t he pena l t yphas e depr i ved hi m of ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance of
couns el undert he Si xth A m endment beca us e hi s at t orneyfai l ed to in v e stig a te h is so c ial an d f a m ilyh isto ryo r h is m e n tal h e a lth46 h is to ry. I neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s ar e governed by t he fa m i l i art w o- pr ong i nqui r ys etfor t h i n Str i ckl a n dv. W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ), re q u irin g a p e tit io n e r to
s how t hatcouns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entan d that t he d ef ici en cypr ej udi ced hi m . T he fi r s tpr ong i s es t abl i s hed by demonstr at i ng t hatcouns el ’ s per form ance fel l bel ow an
o b je c tiv e s ta n d a r d o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . I d. T he reasonab l eness of couns el ’ s per form ance i s as s es s ed on the fa ct s of the par t i cul arcas e att he t i m e of the cha l l enged c onductor
o m is s io n . Id
. at689. T he pr ej udi ce i nqui r yr equi r es a s how i ng that “the re is a rea so n ab le p ro b a b il itythat, b u t fo r co u n sel’s
e rr o rs , th e re s u lt o f

th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t.” Id
. at 694. A “r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yi s a pr obabi l i t ys uffi ci ent t o underm i ne conf

i dence i n t he out come. ” I d. K in d ler su b m itt ed an affidavi tfrom D aniel -Pau l A lv a , h is47 t ri al cou nsel , i n s up po rt of h i s Str i ckland c laim . T h a t af f id a v it i ncl udes t he fol l ow i ng decl ar at i on: M r. K in d ler ’s c a se w a s m y f irst ca p ital tria l. I d id n o t h a v e a n ye x p e rie n c e o r tra in in g in h o w to h a n d le c a p ital c a se s, in p a rticu lar th e p e n a lty phas e of the pr ocee di ng. I co n c e n tra ted m y e f

f o rts o n a ttem p tin g to c re a te a re a so n a b le d o u b t as to M r. K in d ler ’s g u ilt , al t hough I w as aw ar e thatt her e w as a s t r ong l i kel i hood t hatM r . K i ndl erw oul d be convi ct ed. I di d notconduct a p enal t yphas e orm i t i gat i on i nves t i gat i on. I n par t i cul ar , I di d nott al k t o M r . K i ndl er o r an y o f h is fa m ily m e m b e rs a b o u t h is f a m ily backgr ound. M r . K i ndl er ’ s fami l yw as avai l abl e t o m e. H is p a re n ts h a d re tain e d m e , a n d th e y a tten d e d th e trial. I s i m pl ydi d notthi nk about in v es t i gat i ng orpr es ent i ng e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g f

a m ilyb a c k g ro u n d a t th e p e n a lty p h a s e . I also di d notat t empt t o obt ai n anys chool , m edi cal or ot herr ecor ds r el at i ng t o M r . K i ndl er . I di d noth av e a strat egic or t act i cal reas on for no tseeki ng such records; i tj us tdi d notoccurt o m e t h at s uch r ecor ds coul d be h e lp f u l. I also d id n o t c o n sid e r ob tain in g a n y m e n tal h e a lth e v a lu a tio n o f M r. K in d ler
. A g a in , the re w a s n o stra teg ic48 o r t a c tic a l r e a s o n f

o r m yf a ilu re to d o s o . S .A . 2 5
. K in d ler a lso su b m itt e d d e c lar a tio n s f ro m h is p a re n ts, h is
s i s t er , a fr i end, a ps y chol ogi s tand a p s y chi atr i s tdet ai l i ng i nform at i on t hatK i ndl ercl ai m s w oul d have be en uncove r ed by an ade quat e i nves t i gat i on. K i ndl er ’ s par ent s and s i s t erdet ai l ed K i ndl er ’ s upbr i ngi ng. K i ndl er ’ s par ent s fought fr equent l yand viol entl y . In these fi gh t s, his parent s threw ho useho l d it em s, d ish e s, s h o e s , a n d f

u rn itu re a t ea c h o th e r. K in d ler p e rso n a lly
w i t nes s ed thes e fi g h ts, and t heyl efthi m t err i fi ed and c r y i ng. K i ndl er ’ s m ot her w as vi ol ent , depr es s ed, and oft en i nt oxi cat ed. She at t empt ed s ui ci de on s ever al occa s i ons . K i n d ler’s father
w as so co n tr o ll ing that h e e v en restri cted the a m o u n t of w ater,
e lec tricity , an d o th e r re so u rc e s a v a il a b le to K in d ler a n d h is sist er . A ft erK i ndl er ’ s m others epar at ed fr om hi s fath er, K i ndl er’ s fat hert hr eat ened t o ki l l herand the chi l dr en. Supp.49 A p p . 7 . K in d ler ’s s iste r d e sc rib e d th e situ a tio n a s “ liv in g w ith t w o cr azypeopl e thatcoul d notcontr ol thems el ves . ” Supp. A pp. 12. T h e d e c lar a tio n s a lso sta te th a t b o th o f K in d ler ’s p a re n ts
a b u s e d h im . H is m o th e r w a s v e rb a lly a b u s iv e . Id. S he als o t hr ew food atK i ndl er , and once dum ped soup on hi s head w hen h e w o u ld n ’t e a t. K in d ler ’s f a th e r p h y sic a llya b u se d h im w ith el ectr i cal cor ds
. T hes e bea t i ngs w oul d l eave hi m w i t h w el t s on hi s back, and bl ood s how i ng t hr ough hi s s hi r t . A ft erhi s m other and fa t hers epar at ed, K i ndl erl i ved w i t h hi s fath er, a nd t hey fought fre quent l y . T hei rr el at i ons hi p det er i or at ed t o the poi nt
w her e K i ndl er ’ s s i s t er des cr i bed an i ns t ance w her e K i ndl erand hi s fathert hr ew br i cks a t e a c h o th e r d u ri n g a f ig h t. K i ndl er ’ s fr i end des cr i bed a mot or cy cl e ac ci dentK i ndl erw as i nvol ved i n w hen K i ndl erw as a “pr et een. ” Supp. A pp. 16. T he
m ot or cy cl e K i ndler w as ri di ng on w as hi tbya ca rcaus i ng50 K i ndl ert o l os e cons ci ous ness f o r a few m i nut es . A ft er
r egai ni ng cons ci ous nes s , K i ndl erw as daze d and conf us ed, and
cou l d not rem em ber t he acci den t . H i s speec h w a s a lso i ncompre hens i bl e. D es pi t e tho se s ym pt om s , K i ndl erw as not ta k e n to a h o s p ita l o r g iv e n m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t. P e rh a p s m o st im p o rta n tly , in h e r af f id a v it, p sy c h o lo g ist, C ar ol A r m s t r ong, Ph. D
. , declar ed thatK i ndl ers uffe r ed fr om f ro n tal lo b e im p a irm e n t th a t c a n a f f e c t ju d g m e n t, a n d th e a b ili ty to c o n tro l im p u lsiv e b e h a v io r . T h e f ro n tal lo b e im p a irm e n t is
cons i s t entw i t h K i ndl er ’ s hi s t ory of head i nj ur i es , and phy s i cal and emot i onal abus e. She al s o at t es t ed t o t he co g n it i ve, devel opm ent al, and emot i onal eff ect s t hatt he negl ect , abus e,
a n d v i o l e n c e t h a t s u r r o u n d e d Ki n d l e rc o u l d h a v e h a d u p o n h i m. A rm stro n g a d d iti o n a llyn o ted th a t th e tes ts s h e p e rf o rm e d c o u ld h a v e b e e n p e r f

o r me d a n d wo u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n t h e s a me
con cl usi on s at t he t i m e of K i nd l er' s p enaltyph ase proceedings.51 A s if th is w e re n o t su f

f icie n tlyd e re lic t, ps y c h iatris t, R ober tA
. Fox, decl ar ed thathe also eval uat ed K i ndl erand
r evi ew ed var i ous r ecor ds
. Fox di agnos ed K i ndl eras s uffe r i ng f ro m “ m o o d d iso rd e r d u e to a g e n e ra l m e d ica l co n d iti o n w ith
m i xed fe atur es ” and “ nar ci s s i s t i c per s onal i t ydi s or der ” att he t i m e of the cr i m es . Supp. A pp. 23. H e s t at ed thatthe mood di s or dercaus ed per i ods of hypom ani c sy m pt om s i nt er s per s ed
w i t h p eriods of depr es s i on and s i gni fi cantdi s t r es s and i m pai r m ent i n K i ndl er ' s l i fe. A ccor di ng t o D r . Fox , si m i l ar di s tr es s resu lt ed fro m the n arc issi sti c p erso n ali tydi s or der , w hi ch i s char act er i zed bygr andi os i t y , a nee d foradmi r at i on, and a l ack
o f e m p a th y . F o x c o n c lu d e d th a t th e se tw o d iso rd e rs, in combi nat i on w i t h t he hi s t ory of phy s i cal and emot i onal tr auma,
wer e i mpa i r me n t s t h a tc o n s t i tu t e d a n e x t r e me me n t a l or
e m o tio n a l d is tu rb a n c e . T h e d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t A lv a ’s p e rf o rm a n c e d id52 notvi ol at e K i ndl er ’ s Si xth A m endmentri g h t t o eff ect i ve assistan ce o f c o u n sel. T h e c o u rtrea so n ed that alth o u g h A lva’s fa i l u r e t o i n v e s t i g a t e Ki n d e r ’ s p e r s o n a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i c al his t orycon st i tuted de fi ci ent per form ance u nd er the fir st Str i ckland

pr ong, t hat fai l ur e di d not pr ej udi ce K i ndl er , and he t her efor e coul d not pr evai l under t he s econd pr ong. T he di s t r i ct
cou rtbeli eve d t hat this evidence co uld have been view ed as a
m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance , but t he cour t di d “notbel i eve thatthe j urycou ld h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t th is m iti g a tin g f a c to r a d e q u a tely out w ei ghed the tw o aggr avat i ng fac t or s found. ” I d. B ot h par t i es as s ertthatthe di s t r i ctcourterr ed. T he C o m m o n w ea lth arg u es th at th e c o u rterred in ruli n g that A lva’s p erf o rm an ce w as d ef

ici en t; K ind ler a rgu es that the d istri ct co u rt
e rre d b y h o ld in g th a t th e d e f icie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e d id n o t re su lt i n pr ej udi ce. I t i s di ffi cul t t o under s t and how t he C om m onw eal t h can53 s i ncer el yar gue thatt he ki nd of i nform at i o n s etfor t h above coul d nothave be en vi ew ed as a m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance bythe j ur yorhow A l va’ s fai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e i tcoul d be v iew ed as anyt hi ng ot hert han def i ci entr epr es ent at i on. D ef ens e couns el i n capi t al cas es has a dutyt o r eas onabl y i nves t i gat e the exi s t ence
o f m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e u n les s re a so n a b le s tra teg ic ju d g m e n ts
s u p p o rt a d e c is io n n o t to . See Str i ckland , 446 U
. S. at691. H ere , A l va adm it s tha t his failure to in v esti g ate K ind ler’s hist o ry
w as notthe r es ul tof anys t r at egi c ort act i cal deci s i on. Supp. A pp. 25. R ather , i tr es ul t ed s ol el yfr om hi s l ack of expe r i ence in c a p ital c a se s, a n d th e f a c t th a t itn e v e r o c c u rre d to h im to in v e s tig a te K in d e r’ s h is to ry. I d. A lth o u g h th e C o m m o n w e a lth in sis ts th a t A lv a is “ f

a lli n g o n h is s w o rd ” f

o r a f o rm e r c lien t,
n o thing o n th is r ec o rd c o n tr ad ict s the v era cityo f h is sw o rn aff i davi t , and the d ist ri ctcour tdi d notr es ti t s deci s i on on any do ub tabo ut the v eraci t yof A l va’s s w orn dec l arat i on s.54 T h e C o m m o n w e a lth a l so argues that K i nd l er’ s Str i ckland cl ai m i s bel i ed byt he qual i t yof the mi t i gat i on ca se t hatA l va pr e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e p e n a l typ h a s e o f Ki n d l e r ’ s t r i a l
. The C om m onw eal t h poi nt s t o the fi ve w i t nes s es t hat A l va cal l ed on Ki n d l e r ’ s b e h a l f

a n d t h e t e s t i mon yh e e l i c i t e d r e g a r d i ng K in d ler ’s u se f

u ln e ss to so c iety
. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth a lso p o in ts to A lva’s im p a s s io n ed fin al arg u m en t ask ing the ju ryto sp are K i ndl er’ s l i fe. T hi s m i s s es the poi nt . W e do nots ugges tthat A lv a ’s p e rf

o rm a n c e w a s d e f

icie n t b e c a u se h e in a d e q u a tely p rese n ted th e li m it ed inf o rm ati o n that h e h ad
. R athe r, A lva’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

icie n t b e c a u se h is fa ilu re to a d e q u a tely i nves t i gat e mi t i gat i on evi dence of m i t i gat i on m at er i al l yl i m i t ed
w hatevi dence he coul d pr es entt o t he j ury . I ndeed, t he s ki l l ful
m a n n e r i n w h ich A lv a p re se n ted th e lim ited e v id e n c e th a t h e d id have i l l us t r at es t he pot ent i al for ce of the m i t i gat i on evi dence th a t h e d id n o t h a v e b e c a u se h e so lim ited th e sc o p e o f h is55 m i t i gat i on i nves t i gat i on. A lv a , a v e rysk ill f

u l an d f

o rc e f u l ad v o c a te, o n ly pr es ent ed t es t i m ony t hat K i ndl er w as s ki l l ed i n el ectr oni cs , and
c o u ld b e p ro d u c tiv e in p riso n . T h a t m iti g a tio n p a les in
c o mpa r i s o n t o t h e mi t i g a t i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e s t h a ta p r o p er i nves t igat i on of K i ndl er ’ s backgr ound w oul d have de vel oped. In f ind ing th a t A lva’s p erf o rm an ce d id n o t prejud ice K ind ler, t he di s t r i ct cour t cons i der ed onl yt he evi dence pr offe r ed byt he tw o e x p e rts re latin g to K in d ler ’s f ro n tal lob e im p a irm e n t an d h is p e rs o n a lity a n d m o o d d is o rd e rs . K i nd l er v. H orn , 291 F. Supp. 2d at356. T he courtfound thatt he mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance of K ind ler’s em o ti o n al disturb an ce w o u ld h av e b ee n es t abl i s hed by th e e x p e rts, b u t ( in w h a t it ter m e d “ a c lo se c a ll”) th e c o u rt h e ld th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s ‘in su f f icie n t to u n d e rm in e c o n f id e n c e in t h e o u t c o me o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g v e r d i c t . ” I d. W e d isa g re e ; th is evi dence , i n conj unct i on w i t h pr opos ed t es t i m onyr egar di ng56 K i ndl er ’ ' s c h a o t i c a n d v i ol entchi l dhood w i t h "tw o cr azypeopl e" f o r parent s w ho con st antl yabu sed him (and each otheri n h is pr es ence ) , i s s uffi ci entt o m eetthe s econd pr o ng of the Str i ckland in q u ir y . S e e R o m p illa v . B e a r d

, 545 U
. S. 374 ( 2005) ( defe n d a n twas v i c t i m of p h y s i c a l a b u s e a n d n e g l e c tf r om
a lco h o lic p a re n ts); W

igg in s v . Sm ith , 539 U
. S. 510 ( 2003) ( defe nd a n ts u f

f e r e d e x tr e me p a r e n t a l negl ect , s ever el yabus ed by h is m o th e r, a n d se x u a lly a b u se d a s a c h ild ) ; W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 52 9 U
. S
. 36 2 (200 0) ( defe nd a n t w as severel yneg l ect ed as a
c h ild ); O ut t en v. Kear ney , 464 F. 3d 401 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( defe ndantw as phy s i cal l y abus ed by father , and s exual l yabus ed b yo thers). K i ndl er ’ s j ur ycoul d eas i l y have cons i der ed evi dence of hi s chaot i c and a bus i ve chi l dhood as “evi dence of m i t i gat i on
conce r ni ng t he cha r act erand rec o r d of the def endantand the circu m stan ce s o f h is o ff en se.” 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat . § 9 7 1 1 (e)(8).57 W e c a n n o t sa yw ith c o n f id e n c e th a t th e p e n a ltyp h a se w o u ld have ha d t he s ame r es ul t i f t he j ur or s had been abl e t o w ei gh t he t w o aggr avat i ng circum s t ance s thatw er e es t abl i s hed bey ond a
r eas onabl e doubtagai ns tthe evi dence of m i t i gat i on t hata pr oper in v e stig a tio n w o u ld h a v e p re se n ted . T h e e v id e n c e m ig h t w e ll have been a cce pt ed as expl ai ni ng ( t hough cert ai nl ynot
excu si ng ) K i nd l er’ s i m pu l si ve acti on s i ncludi ng w hyhe w as so
w illin g to k ill a n d b ru ta liz e B e rn s te in
. A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd t hatK i ndl eri s al s o en ti tl ed t o a
new penal t yh ear i ng beca us e hi s couns el ’ s defi ci ent per form ance dur i ng the p enal t yphas e depr i ved hi m of the eff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el thatthe Si xth A m endment
re q u ir e s . C . V ouc hi ng K i ndl ercl ai m ed thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s ar gum ent dur i ng th e pen al typh ase v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b yim p ro p e rly58 vo u ch ing fort he dea th penal t y . H e cha l l enged the fol l ow i ng p a rt o f th e p ro se c u to r’s sta tem e n t:

L etm e at t hi s poi nt , l adi es and gent l emen, t el l y ou the p os i t i on, the pos i t i on of the offi ce, t he pos i t i on of the C om m onw eal t h. W e i n t hi s cas e s eek a nd ur ge t hr ough t he e v id e n c e a n d th e law th e d e a th p e n a lty a g a in s t J o s e p h K in d le r. I n r efe r ence t o S cot tShaw , I w i l l ar gue a n d p re se n t b o th o f

th e sid e s a n d it i s u p to y ou t o decide againstbo t h o f t hese par t i cul ari nd ivi dual s w hatpenal tyy ou fee l appr opr i at e. T hat w oul d be t he cas e no m a tter w h a t o u r o f

f ice ’s p o sitio n is b u t I fel t fr om t he out s et her e t hat I w o u ld l et y ou know thatthe u r gi ng w oul d be done based o n the evi den ce w ou l d b e against M is te r K in d le r. T hat d o es not m ean thaty ou cannotor w oul d not , bas ed on the evi dence and t he law re tu rn s u c h a p e n a ltyif y o u f e lt a p p r o p r i a t e , a g a i n s tM i s t e rS c o t tS h a w. T hati s y ou rpow erand i f y ou fi nd i ty our du t yi n co nn ect i on w i t h w h a tt he law i s,59 t hen I am sur e y ou w ould do i tbutI , at l e a s t , wa n t e d t o l e ty o u k n o w th a tn o w. K in d ler a rg u e d th a t th is w a s tan tam o u n t to im p ro p e rly vouchi ng for a s ent ence of dea t h forhi m beca us e the pr os ecut or i m pr oper l yi nform ed the j uryt hatt he off i ci al pos it ion of the D i s t r i ctA t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce w as t hathe s houl d be putt o death, but t he D i s t r i ctA t t or neydi d notcar e aboutw hether h is c odefe ndants houl d be exe cut ed. T he di s t r i ct cour tagr eed, and the C o m m o n w e a lth a p p e a ls th a t ru lin g . T h e d istric t co u rt re a so n e d : In c o n s id ering [th e p rose cu tor’s a rg u m e n t] , w e f

in d it cle a rly cons t i tut ed i m pr oper vouchi ng and h arm fu l, c o n sti tuti o n al error. I ndeed, the ent i r e pr emi s e of the pr os ecut or ’ s ar gum ent w as t hatt he C om m onw eal t h pos s es s ed eve n s t r on ger evi dence of J os eph K ind le r’ s g u ilt a n d stat u tory a g g ra v a to rs th a n th a t p r e se n ted to t he j ur yand that‘ w as w hythe ur gi ng w oul d be done ba s ed on theW e do no tsugg estthat a defend ant can nev er es t abli sh 12 i m pr operpr os ecut or i al vouchi ng i f the cha l l enged s t at ement does notr i gi dl yadher e t o t hes e cr i t er i a as ther e maybe situ a tio n s w h e re th e p ro se c u to r’s a rg u m e n t so stro n g ly i nvokes t he author i t yof hi s /heroffi ce a nd s o bl at ant l ycr os s es t he l i ne of pr opr i etyt hati ti s t ant amount t o uncons t i tut i onal v o u c h in g . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 9 6 8 F
. 2 d 7 6 8 (8 th C i r . 1992)
. H ow ever , no s uch ci r cumst ance i s pr es enther e, a n d o u ra n a l y s i s t h e r e f

o r e p r o c e e d s a l o n g th e f a mi l i a rtwo pr ong i nqui r ydi s cus s ed i n W alker
. 60 e v id e n c e ... a g a in s t M is te r K in d le r.’ W e di s agr ee. “O u r c as e l aw i ndi cat es t hatt o fi nd
vo uch i ng , t w o cri t eri a m ustbe m et : (1) t he p rosecut or m ust
a ss u re th e ju ryth a t th e tes tim o n yo f a G o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss is
cr edi ble; and ( 2) t hi s as s ur ance i s bas ed on ei t hert he pr os ecut or ' s per s onal know l edge, orot heri nform at i on not cont ai ned i n t he r ecor d. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , 155 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1998)
. T he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s her e do not
m eetei ther r equi r ement . T he pr os ecut ordi d notdr aw upon 12 evi dence out s i de of the r ecor d t o as s ur e the j u ry o f the61 cr edi bi l i t yof a pr os ecut ion w i t nes s ort he s t r ength of the C om m onw eal t h’ s cas e. R ather , the pr os ecut oremphasi zed that t he j ury ’ s deci s i on m us t be base d on t he l aw and t he evi dence
. A l t hough he i nform ed j ur or s t hat he w as s peci fi cal l yr eques t i ng t he d e a t h p e n a l t yf

o rKi n d l e ra n d n o tSh a w, h e a l s o s t a t e d th at t he j ury m u st make i t s ow n deci s i on aboutw hats ent ence w as appr opr i at e for K i ndl er and hi s codef endant i r r es pect i ve of the C o m m o n w e a lth ’s p o s itio n . A l t hough i tw oul d have be en farbet t erfort he pr os ecut or t o s i m pl ym ake hi s ar gum entw i t houti nform i ng t he j uryof the
o ff ici al p o sit ion o f the D istri ct A tt o rne y , h is st atem en ts he re a re di s t i ngui s hab le fr om t hos e thathave r equi r ed r el i ef i n ot her
cas es . Forexampl e, i n S h u rn v . D e lo , 1 7 7 F
. 3 d 6 6 2 (8 C ir
. th 1999) , t he pr os ecut or , aft erl i nki n g t he def endantt o not or i ous
m a ss m u rd e re r C h a rle s M a n so n , a n d im p lo rin g th e ju ryto k ill t he def endants ever al t i m es, st at ed: “I ’ m t he t op l aw62 enfor cementoffi ceri n t hi s county and I ’ m t he one thatdeci des i n w hi ch cas es t o as k for t he dea t h penal t y. . . . I ’ m t el l i ng y ou t her e’s n o case t hatcoul d be more obvi ous t han the [ d e f e n d a n ts ’] .” 1 7 7 F .3 d a t 6 6 6
. A l t hough w e di s agre e w i t h the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s vi ew of K in d ler ’s v o u c h in g c laim , w e a g re e it c o m e s p e rilo u slyc lo se to t he evi l s enunci at ed i n B r o o k s v . Ke mp , 7 6 2 F
. 2 d 1 3 8 3 (11 C ir
. th 1985)
. T her e, t he pros ecut orm ade a n uns uppor t ed cl ai m t hathe had on l ysoug ht t he d eat h p enaltyi n a fe w cases duri ng the p ast y ear , w hi ch i m pr oper l yi m pl i ed “thatt he pr os ecut or ’ s offi ce ha d al readym ade the careful j ud gm ent that [that] case, abo ve m ost ot herm ur dercas es , w arr ant ed the dea t h penal t y . ” Id
. at1383. T he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ementher e di d notpurpor tt o dr aw upon evi dence out s i de t he r ecor d i n or der t o di s t i nguish b et w een K in d le r a n d h is c o d e f

e n d a n t. C

f
. G igl i o v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 405 U
. S
. 1 5 0 , 1 5 4 (19 7 2 ).63 D . N on- St at ut ory A ggravat i ng F act ors K ind leral s o obj ect ed t o t he fol l ow i ng por t i on of the p ro se c u to r’s a rg u m e n t d u rin g th e p e n a ltyp h a se : T her e has been tes t i m onyt haty ou hear d that M is te r S h aw w as in fa ct l ed
. Y o u h av e h ea rd t es t i m o nyfr om hi s gr andmot her , as a mat t erof fac t , thathe i n fac tgoti nt o t roubl e bec aus e he w as l ed as a r es ul tof otherpeopl e, beca us e of the f a ilu re p e rh a p s a t ti m e s to h a v e s u f f icie n t m a le co m p an ion sh ip am o n g o ther thin g s. If tha t w ere t he cas e and y ou m us t acc eptt hatdoes notl es s en i n t erm s of gui l tof a cr i m e i ndeed notas y ou had found. B utas y ou m u st c o ns i deri n r ever s e w hatand w her e that put s t he i ndi vi dual t hator gani zed a nd eff ectuat ed thi s part i cul ar act , for
. . . t hatm an has no ton l yforever ruined t he li fe of an indi vidual so t hathe i s dead b u trui ned the l i fe of another i n d i v i d u a l b e c a u s e o f

h i s i n f l u e n c e , i n t e n s i t y, cl ar i t yof purpos e and met hods i n det ai l
. . . T hat is w h a t w e a re ta lk in g a b o u t. I f y ou bel i eved thatM i s t erShaw w as i n fac tl ed, if y o u b e liev e th a t h e , a s a, at th e tim e , 1 6 y e a r o ld b o y , w h o w a s u n d e r th e in f lu e n c e o f o ld e r p e o p le and i f y ou bel i eve thatei t heri ndi r ect l yor w hat ever , t her e w as a ce r t ai n amount of coe r ci on,64 al t hough not s uffi ci entt o negat e the cr i m e, i f y ou w oul d acc eptt hat , w el l y es , y ou coul d fi nd of cour s e mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s i n t hat
. So y ou m us t cons i der , how eve r , e v e r t h e r e t he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s tha tI had ment i oned. T h a t’ s u p to y o u to d e c id e . B u t in re f

e re n c e to M iste r K in d ler , it ’s a n e n tirely di ffe r ents t or y . B eca us e w i t h t hat , w e ar e t al ki ng about , a l eade r , the ac t or , the one w i t h t he i dea, t he o ne w i t h the m oti ve, t he o ne w ith t he p ush thro u g h o u t, the o n e tha t cam e b ac k an d said h e’s notdead y et ; I had t o us e a c oncr et e s t one t o dr op hi m i n t he ri v er. L adi es and gent l emen, t hat alon e . W e a re talking ab o u t w eigh ing , w e a re tal k ing w eigh ing o f c ir cu m stan ce s to se e w h ere t he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s and t he mi t i gat i ng w o u ld a p p ly , h o w th e y i n f a c t w o u ld b e in ref ere n ce to w eigh ing ea ch o ther. T he di s t r i ctco ur tconcl uded thatthi s ar gum entw as t ant amount t o as ki ng t he j ury t o i m pos e t he death penal t ybas ed upon a “non- s t atut or y ” aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance ; thatK i ndl er
w as the leader w ho had organized t he m urder and in do i ng so
exert ed und u e infl uence overa vul ner abl e code fenda nt . T he C om m on w eal t h ap peals
.65 W e a g ree tha t th e p rose cu tor' s arg u m en t w as im p rop er. N e i t h e rKi n d l e r ' s r o l e i n t h e mur d e r , n o rh i s i n f l u e n c e o v er Shaw can pr oper l ybe cons i der ed an a ggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance
u n d er the ap p li ca b le st atute. S ee 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat . § 9 7 1 1 (d ). R athert han l i m i thi s ar gum entt o t he aggr avat i ng fac t or s defi ned byt he l egi s l atur e, t he pr os ecut ori nvi t ed the j uryt o i m pos e the death penal t ybas ed upon hi s ow n vi ew o f the i m por t ance of K i n d l e r ’ s r o l e a n d m a n i p u l a t i o n o f S h a w . T h e p r o s e c u t o r 's
ar gum enti nt r oduced a n i nval i d s ent enci ng fac t or i nt o t he
a n a lysis , w h ic h is a n e rr o r o f c o n s titu tio n a l m a g n i tu d e . C f. B row n v. Sa nd ers, 5 4 6 U .S . 2 1 2 , 2 2 0 (2 0 0 6 ). T hats ai d, t hi s err ordi d nothave a ny "su b sta nt i al and in ju ri o u s e f

f e c t" o n th e d e lib e ra tio n s . Fr y v . Pl i l er , 1 2 7 S .C t. 2 3 2 1 , 2 3 2 8 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. AtKi n d l e r ' s s e n t e n c i n g , th e j u r yf o u n d two agg r a v a t i n g f

a c t o r s u n r e l a t e d t o th e p r o s e c u t o r ' s i mpr operW e a ssu m e f o r th is i n q u irythat the ju ry ’s find ing s w ere 13 notaff ect ed byt he Mi l l

s err ororthe i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n se l. 66 ar gum ent , and no m i t i gat i ng fac t or s . T he j uryw as i ns t ruct ed 13 that "the v erd ictm u st b e a s e n tenc e o f d ea th if the jury unani m ous l yfi nds atl eas tone aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance . . . and
n o m it igating circu m stan ce s. " W e p resu m e tha t th e jury fol l ow ed thes e i ns t ruct i ons , and ther efor e w e mustconcl ude that t he j ur yw oul d have se nt ence d K i ndl ert o death w hetherornot th e im p ro p e r a rg u m e n t w a s p re s e n te d
. R i cha rdson v. M arsh , 4 8 1 U .S . 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 (1 9 8 7 ) (s tatin g th e "a lm o st in v a ria b le
assu m p ti o n o f t h e law that juro rs fo ll o w their i n stru cti o n s. "). T h e re su lto f th e e q u ati o n w o u ld b e the sam e w h eth er the jury
w eig h e d 2 ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s ag ains t no n e o r 3 aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o none. I n ei t hercas e, t he abs ence of anym i t i gat i ng fac t ors w oul d t i p t he bal ance i n favorof a
s ent ence of dea t h. A ccor di ngl y , t he admi s s i on of the i m pr oper67 argum ent w as harm l ess.

E . S im m o n s v . Ca lifo rn ia K i ndl eral s o ar gues t hatt he pena l t yphas e w as fl aw ed beca us e the t r i al cour t di d not i nform t he j uryt hat“l i fe” m eans life in P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d h e w o u ld n o t b e e lig ib le f o r p a ro le if
s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . I n Sim m on s v . South C ar ol i na, 5 1 2 U
. S
. 1 5 4 (19 9 4 ), the C o u rth eld th at no t i n fo rm ing a jury t hata def endant w oul d never be r el eas ed on par ol e i f s ent ence d to life w a s a v io latio n o f d u e p ro c e ss re q u irin g a n e w p e n a lty phas e. H ow ever , t hatr equi r ementi s onl y appl i cabl e w hen the pr os ecut i on ar gues futur e dange r ous nes s . t he C our texpl ai ned: H o ld in g a ll o th e r f

a c to rs c o n sta n t, i t is e n tirely r e a s o n a b l e f

o ra s e n t e n c i n g j u r y t o v i e w a defe ndantw ho i s el i gi bl e forpar ol e as a gr eat er th re a t to so c ietyth a n a d e f e n d a n t w h o is n o t. I ndeed, t her e maybe no gr eat eras s ur ance of a d e f e n d a n t' s f u tu re n o n d a n g e ro u sn e ss t o the p u b lic t han the fa ctt hathe neve rw i l l be r el ea sed on p aro le. T h e tri al co u rt ' s ref u sal t o ap p ri se th e jury of i nform at i on s o cru cial t o i t s s ent enci ng68 det erm i nat i on, par t i cul ar l yw hen t he pr os ecut i on a llu d e d to th e d e f

e n d a n t' s fu tu re d a n g e ro u sn e ss in its a rg u m e n t to th e ju ry , ca n n o t b e re c o n c iled w ith ourw el l
- es t abl i s hed pr ece dent s i nt erpr et i ng the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. 512 U
. S. 154, 164. K i n d ler’s f utur e dange r ous nes s never beca m e an i s s ue her e. T her efor e, the rul e i n Si m m ons sim p ly d o e s n o ta p p l y. V . C oncl usi on T o s um m ar i ze: w e conc l ude thatthe j uryi ns t ruct i ons and ver di cts heett hatw er e us ed dur i ng the pena l t yphas e of K i ndl er ’ s t r i al deni ed hi m due pr oces s of l aw pur s uantt o t he hol di ng i n Mi l l

s v. M ar yland. W e al s o fi nd thatK i ndl erw as d e n ied e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l d u rin g th e p e n a lty phas e. H ow ever , w e fi nd no m er i ti n t he r emai nderof K in d le r’ s c la im s . A ccor di ngl y , t he or derof the di s t r i ctcour tgr ant i ng a condi t i onal w r i tof habe as corpus and or der i ng ei t hera new69 s ent enci ng hear i ng w i t hi n 180 day s ora s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i l l be af fi r m ed.