Opinion ID: 799903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Substance of Pope's Allegations

Text: Once a petitioner has established diligence, a federal court may grant an evidentiary hearing without regard to the strictures of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), but only if the petitioner has proffer[ed] evidence that, if true, would entitle him to relief. Hill v. Moore, 175 F.3d 915, 922 (11th Cir.1999); accord Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007) (In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.). In the federal district court, Pope has proffered the following substantial body of evidence that he would develop if granted an evidentiary hearing. As for Strickland performance, Pope has alleged, inter alia, that his trial counsel, Eber, did no penalty-phase mitigation investigation whatsoever, even though Eber knew, among other things, that Pope suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and heavy drug abuse. We recognize that Pope had instructed Eber not to present mitigating evidence, and that a mentally competent defendant's instruction not to investigate or not to present mitigating evidence may make counsel's decision not to do so reasonable. See, e.g., Cummings v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 588 F.3d 1331, 1356-59 (11th Cir.2009) (collecting cases). Notably, however, we have previously found counsel's performance deficient where he acceded to his client's instructions not to investigate or present mitigating evidence despite his belief that his client had mental health issues. Thompson v. Wainwright, 787 F.2d 1447, 1451-52 (11th Cir.1986); see also Blanco, 943 F.2d at 1500-03 (deeming counsel's failure to investigate to be deficient performance when counsel conducted no pretrial investigation, even though defendant had provided information on his background and was noticeably morose and irrational when instructing counsel not to present any mitigation witnesses). This is especially true when in doing so the attorney foregoes a defendant's only plausible line of defense. Foster v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 402, 407 n. 16 (11th Cir.1987). Moreover, in many of the cases where counsel's decision to forego investigating or presenting mitigating evidence based on a competent client's clear instruction has been considered effective assistance, there was ample testimony regarding counsel's strategic decision not to present mitigating evidence, and counsel had explained the mitigating evidence to the defendant. See, e.g., Reed v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 593 F.3d 1217, 1240 (11th Cir.2010); Cummings, 588 F.3d at 1361; Newland v. Hall, 527 F.3d 1162, 1209 (11th Cir.2008). [13] And, in the cases collected and described in Cummings, the records were clear that the defendants had instructed counsel to forego not only the presentation of mitigating evidence, but also its investigation. Here, the record is wholly undeveloped concerning Eber's perceptions of Pope's mental health, what instructions, if any, Pope may have given Eber about investigating mitigating evidence, and how an investigation may have changed Pope's views on mitigating evidence, as well as what strategy, if any, Eber had for Pope's mitigation investigation or presentation. Without this record, we are left with Pope's express allegations that Eber utterly failed to investigate or prepare for the penalty phase of the trial, never interviewed readily available witnesses who had been present during the trial, and specifically admitted that he recalled doing no mitigation investigation. Eber failed to do so, says Pope, even though Eber was aware of at least some of Pope's mental health issues, including PTSD. Significantly, Pope also alleges that Eber improperly failed to object to the following statement made by the prosecutor in closing arguments to the jury during the penalty phase: Incidentally, Mr. Pope has announced that he would rather receive a death penalty than life imprisonment. [14] As the Florida Supreme Court foundin ruling on Pope's habeas petition alleging ineffectiveness of appellate counselthe prosecutor's comments in the penalty phase closing argument were clearly improper, and the comment on the petitioner's preference for death was [t]he most bothersome. Pope, 496 So.2d at 803. In short, Pope has painted a picture for us in which trial counsel did not prepare for the penalty phase of his trial; put forth little, if any, mitigating evidence, although there was ample evidence available; and allowed the jury to hear, without objection, that Pope preferred to die. As for prejudice, Pope has alleged that because trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's comment to the jury that Pope preferred the death penalty, it was manifestly easier for the jury to recommend death. In addition, he has alleged that due to trial counsel's failure to conduct any penalty-phase investigation, the jury was not made aware that Pope suffered an abusive and impoverished childhood; exhibited many positive personality traits; began experimenting with drugs as a result of his Vietnam experience; escalated his drug use after he returned home; continued to suffer from the consequences of the war; and exhibited substantial mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder, organic delusional disorder, substance abuse disorder, and bipolar disorder. In particular, Pope claims that Eber failed to explain to the jury how Pope's Vietnam experiences affected his drug use, his psychological state, and the actions Pope allegedly took during the weekend of the murders. The jury also did not hear about the peculiarities of Pope's mental state, and how because of Pope's pre-Vietnam childhood and mental disorders, Pope was more dramatically affected by these things than the average Vietnam veteran would have been. This is significant, since our courts have placed great importance on the impact of military service as mitigationrecognizing not only that [o]ur Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines, but also that the relevance of extensive combat experience is not only that he served honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat took on [the defendant]. Porter v. McCollum, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 447, 455, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009). Nor did the jury hear that, according to Pope's experts, his behavior at the time of the murders satisfied two statutory mitigating circumstances(1) extreme emotional or mental disturbance, see Fla. Stat. § 921.141(6)(b); and (2) diminished capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, see id. § 921.141(6)(f) or that several non-statutory mitigating circumstances, including his impoverished and abusive childhood and his capacity for rehabilitation, applied. Indeed, Pope has alleged, through his experts' affidavits, that his mental illnesses, both singularly and in combination, impaired all aspects of his cognitive and emotional processes and left him predisposed to act in an irrational manner when confronted with even minimal stressors. His experts say that his chronic and acute abuse of drugs also impaired his critical judgment, perception of others, and interaction with others, so that Pope's judgment was impaired to a substantial degree at the time of the murders. The experts further opine that the combination of increasing confusion and stressful events caused gross impairment of Pope's already impoverished cognitive ability and of his already severely compromised ability to act volitionally. According to these experts, his drug dependence influenced his actions and caused him to behave in violent and unpredictable ways completely inconsistent and at odds with his prior history and background of nonviolence. As a result, the experts opine, these conditions affected Pope's behavior by potentiating that he would overreact in an irrational, combative, and even violent way, with no appreciation for the consequences of his behavior. We agree with Pope that these allegations, considered together, are powerful, and if he is able to prove they are true, he would be entitled to habeas relief. See Hill, 175 F.3d at 922. However, we do not know the veracity of his claims because Pope has never been afforded an opportunity to develop their factual basis in the crucible of an evidentiary hearingnor, just as importantly, has the State had the opportunity to challenge them in an adversarial hearing. As a result, the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing amounted to an abuse of discretion, especially since the district court ultimately granted habeas relief based on the wholly untested allegations Pope sought to develop in the hearing. [15] Therefore, the district court's decision to grant habeas relief on Pope's penalty-phase claims without testing these allegations in an evidentiary hearing is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on Pope's two penalty-phase ineffectiveness claims. [16]