Opinion ID: 2511886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the tenth circuit affirms the decision of the federal district court

Text: ¶ 38 Mr. Gardner timely appealed the federal district court's final orders that, together, rejected all his claims. [151] Pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the Tenth Circuit applied a standard of review deferential to Utah courts. [152] Under this standard of review, Mr. Gardner could only prevail if the state adjudication on the merits (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. [153] ¶ 39 Despite the federal district court's application of a de novo standard of review as to the issue of trial counsel's ineffectiveness, and contrary to the arguments made by both the State and Mr. Gardner, the Tenth Circuit applied the more deferential AEDPA standard to that claim as well. [154] ¶ 40 The Tenth Circuit concluded that our decision that Mr. Gardner was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to provide Dr. Heinbecker with more time to prepare was not unreasonable. [155] But even though the Tenth Circuit gave our decision deference, it conducted a fact-intensive analysis that strongly indicated its view that Mr. Gardner was not prejudiced by his expert's lack of preparation time. [156] For instance, the court concluded that even though Dr. Heinbecker only had a day to prepare, he was able to testify that Mr. Gardner had an unstable upbringing, the product of a broken home. His mother had difficulty disciplining her nine kids, his step-father was incarcerated, his family had lengthy criminal and substance abuse histories, and his mother was charged with parental neglect when Mr. Gardner was two and five. Dr. Heinbecker further testified that Mr. Gardner was in and out of state institutions for most of his life, and tests revealed some evidence of organic brain damage. [157] ¶ 41 The Tenth Circuit then reasoned that any additional evidence Dr. Heinbecker might have presented had he been given more time to prepare would only have added color to what he did testify to during the penalty phase. [158] The court stated that [k]nowing of [Mr. Gardner's] difficult upbringing and possible brain damage did not convince a jury to forego the death penalty. [159] It opined that additional details about Mr. Gardner's youthful drug use, criminal history, and scores on various mental tests would likely not have changed the jury's mind, especially because, given that the evidence also tended to show Mr. Gardner's future dangerousness, the evidence could have had a double-edged effect. [160] Further, if Dr. Heinbecker had introduced evidence that Mr. Gardner was not fully in control of his actions, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that the State would have introduced rebuttal evidence to prove volition, including previously unintroduced evidence of past violent acts that appeared to be calculated and controlled; [161] expert testimony that Mr. Gardner's antisocial personality disorder did not impair his volition; evidence from Mr. Gardner's own experts that showed that Mr. Gardner performs well under stress and always manages to stop when his life is threatened; Mr. Gardner's own statement that his motivation for trying to escape was so that he could return to drug use; and evidence that Mr. Gardner's antisocial personality disorder was brought on by his own extensive drug use. [162] ¶ 42 Ultimately, the court concluded that any difference between the testimony Dr. Heinbecker gave and the testimony he might have given with more preparation time was merely a difference of degree, and that Dr. Heinbecker would not have found evidence that supported a different diagnosis. [163] The evidence the defense found after a full investigation, the court reasoned, only supported moderate brain damage, largely brought on by Mr. Gardner's own drug useand Dr. Heinbecker testified with regard to these impairments. [164] The Tenth Circuit concluded that despite Dr. Heinbecker's time constraints, he effectively conveyed mitigating evidence regarding Mr. Gardner's family history, possible organic brain damage, and social circumstances. [165] ¶ 43 Supported by this reasoning, the Tenth Circuit held that our decision on this issue was not unreasonable and, after reviewing each of the other issues before it, affirmed the federal district court's dismissal of Mr. Gardner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [166] On March 8, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied Mr. Gardner's petition for writ of certiorari from the Tenth Circuit's decision. [167]