Opinion ID: 1435226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Majority Misapplies this Circuit's Caselaw to Find Prejudice

Text: The caselaw relied on by the majority to establish prejudice is distinguishable. In Dickerson v. Bagley, 453 F.3d 690, 698-99 (6th Cir.2006), this Court found prejudice under Strickland because counsel failed to discover and present evidence that: (1) the capital petitioner's IQ placed him in a category slightly higher than mentally retarded; and (2) that the petitioner was raised in a home where his biological father denied his relationship, where he was called `the moron,' and was surrounded by `pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers[.]' Id. However, unlike the petitioner's counsel in Dickerson, Morales's counsel in this case presented testimony through Dr. Politzer regarding Morales's level of mental functioning, including his IQ, which was in the low, but still average, range (J.A. 895-96). She also testified as to Morales's family situation, which, while imperfect, was still relatively intact. (J.A. 890.) And there is no evidence that Morales was ever physically, sexually, or psychologically abused like the Dickerson petitioner. Hamblin v. Mitchell, 354 F.3d 482, 489-93 (6th Cir.2003) also is not analogous. In Hamblin, we held that the capital petitioner was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to present evidence regarding his mental history and abusive childhood. Id. at 493. Hamblin is unique in that the petitioner's counsel did not present the jury with any mitigating evidence. Id. at 490 (emphasis added); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (finding prejudice where the only mitigating evidence heard by the jury was that the petitioner had no prior convictions; petitioner's counsel presented no evidence of the petitioner's life history); Frazier v. Huffman, 343 F.3d 780 (6th Cir.2003) (finding prejudice where counsel presented no mitigating evidence except defendant's one-sentence plea of mercy). That is not the case here. In fact, the majority opinion details much of that mitigating evidence. Moreover, the alleged mitigating evidence does not approach the extreme circumstances concerning the backgrounds of the petitioners in those cases. The Supreme Court and this Circuit have found prejudice when the jury was deprived of non-cumulative mitigating evidence such as severe physical, psychological, or sexual abuse, a violent upbringing, or abject poverty. See, e.g., Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 392, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (finding prejudice where petitioner was reared in abject poverty and suffered extreme physical and psychological abuse, which including being locked in a small wire mesh dog pen that was filthy and excrement filled); Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 534-35, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (2003) (finding prejudice where petitioner suffered severe physical and sexual abuse including physical torment, sexual molestation, and repeated rape during his years spent in foster care); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (finding prejudice where the petitioner had a nightmarish childhood, including that the petitioner's parents were imprisoned for their criminal neglect of their children, and that the petitioner was severely and repeatedly beaten by his father); Harries v. Bell, 417 F.3d 631, 639 (6th Cir.2005) (finding prejudice where petitioner suffered from significant physical abuse during his childhood, including an incident in which he was hit on the head with a frying pan, and another in which choked so severely that his eyes hemorrhaged); Hamblin v. Mitchell, 354 F.3d 482, 490 (6th Cir.2003) (finding prejudice where petitioner was reared in abject poverty, suffered from significant physical abuse, and suffered from a mental disorder which possibly resulted from a severe blow to the head at about age [eight], inflicted by his father with a dog chain, and from a severe infection his mother suffered while pregnant with him, the result of a stabbing inflicted on her by [the petitioner's] father); Coleman v. Mitchell, 268 F.3d 417, 452 (6th Cir.2001) (finding prejudice where petitioner's childhood was filled with abuse and privation, and petitioner exhibited organic brain dysfunction and was borderline mentally retarded). While Morales did not have a particularly amiable childhood, the circumstances of his upbringing contrasts markedly from these cases in which prejudice was established. Notably, Dr. Politzer testified that Morales came from a relatively intact family, but a very chaotic family situation. (J.A. 890.) Although cumulative evidence establishes that Morales was abused by his older brother, the record is devoid of any evidence that rises to the levels of abuse described in the aforementioned cases.