Document: 127 S. Ct. 1933 (2007) Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey Timothy LANDRIGAN aka Billy Patrick Wayne Hill. No. 05-1575. Supreme Court United States. Argued January 9, 2007. Decided May 14, *1936 Kent E. Cattani, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner. Donald Verrilli, Jr., Washington, DC, Respondent. Terry Goddard, Attorney General, Mary R. O'Grady, Solicitor Patricia Nigro, Assistant Arizona, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Elaine J. Goldenberg, Scott Wilkens, Jessica Ring Amunson, Joshua M. Segal, Jenner & Block LLP, Jon Sands, Dale A. Baich, *1937 Sylvia Lett, Justin F. Marceau, Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion Court. In cases where an applicant federal habeas relief is not barred from obtaining evidentiary hearing by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), decision to grant such a rests in discretion district court. Here, District determined that respondent could make out colorable claim ineffective assistance counsel and therefore was entitled hearing. It did so after reviewing state-court record expanding include additional evidence offered respondent. The Appeals held abused its refusing We hold it not. I Respondent Landrigan convicted Oklahoma second-degree murder 1982. 1986, while custody murder, repeatedly stabbed another inmate subsequently assault battery with deadly weapon. Three years later, escaped prison murdered Chester Dean Dyer Arizona. An jury found guilty theft, burglary, felony having caused victim's death course burglary. At sentencing, Landrigan's attempted present testimony ex-wife birth mother as mitigating evidence. But at request, both women refused testify. When trial judge asked why witnesses refused, responded "it's my client's wishes." App. Pet. Cert. D-3. Counsel explained he had "advised [Landrigan] very strongly think it's much against his interests take particular position." Ibid. court then questioned Landrigan: "THE COURT: Mr. Landrigan, have you instructed your lawyer do wish him bring any circumstances attention? DEFENDANT: Yeah. Do know what means? are there should be aware of? Not far I'm concerned." Id., D-3, D-4. Still satisfied, directly Both refused. proffer witnesses' testimony. explain would testify used drugs alcohol (including she pregnant Landrigan), alcohol, been good father. none it. tried worked legitimate job provide family, interrupted stated "[i]f wanted this heard, I'd wife say it." D-6. only working but also "doing robberies supporting family." D-7. characterized first elements self-defense, clarified: "He *1938 didn't grab me. him." D-9. Responding counsel's statement implying stabbing involved self-defense because assaulted knew victim, clarify acquainted just "a guy got argument with. 14 times. lucky lived." conclusion sentencing hearing, if anything say. made brief concluded, "I want give me penalty, right on. ready D-16. two statutory aggravating circumstances: expectation pecuniary gain previously felonies involving use or threat violence on person. D-23. addition, nonstatutory family loved absence premeditation. Finally, considered person who has no scruples regard human life beings." Based these findings, sentenced death. On direct appeal, unanimously affirmed sentence conviction. addressing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel relevant here, noted "desire presented behalf." State 176 Ariz. 1, 8, 859 P.2d 111, 118 (1993). 31, 1995, filed petition state postconviction alleged "fail[ure] explore grounds arguing mitigation evidence." F-3 (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, maintained investigated "biological component" violent behavior interviewing biological father other relatives. E-2. confirm Landrigan. court, presided over same rejected claim. "[Landrigan] attorney [so] difficult comprehend how can sentencing." F-4. Noting contention "`would cooperated'" presented, concluded "statements belie new-found sense cooperation." Describing "frivolous," id., F-5, declined dismissed petition. denied review June 19, 1996. application under 2254. determined, "expand[ing] ... [Landrigan's] troubled background, history drug abuse, family's criminal behavior," C-22, demonstrate prejudiced error may made. Because even "colorable" claim, C-46, *1939 unanimous panel Ninth Circuit affirmed, full granted rehearing en banc, Stewart, 397 F.3d 1235 (2005), reversed. banc raised "colorable claim" performance fell below standard required Strickland 466 U.S. 668, 104 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 441 638, 650 (C.A.9 2006). With respect performance, "did little prepare aspect case," 643, investigation revealed wealth evidence, including abuse propensity violence. Turning prejudice, court's determination permit "an `unreasonable facts.'" 647 (quoting 2254(d)(2)). when clearly referring about introducethat mother. F.3d, 646. further that, intended forgo presentation all "last-minute cannot excuse failure conduct adequate prior 647. conclusion, reasonable probability allegations true, reached different conclusion." 650. remanded case certiorari now reverse. II Prior Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, generally left sound courts. Brown Allen, 344 443, 463-464, 73 397, 97 469 (1953); see Townsend Sain, 372 293, 313, 83 745, 9 770 (1963). That basic rule changed. See 2254, Rule 8(a) ("[T]he must answer [and] transcripts records proceedings determine whether warranted"). AEDPA, however, changed standards granting relief.[1] Under Congress prohibited courts unless adjudication "resulted contrary to, unreasonable of, established Federal law, States," 2254(d)(1), "was based facts light proceeding." 2254(d)(2). question AEDPA believes incorrect unreasonablea substantially higher threshold. Williams Taylor, 529 362, 410, 120 1495, 146 389 (2000). requires *1940 presume correctness courts' factual findings applicants rebut presumption "clear convincing 2254(e)(1). deciding consider enable prove petition's allegations, which, entitle relief. See, e.g., Mayes Gibson, 210 1284, 1287 (C.A.10 2000). deferential prescribed 2254 control relief, into account those appropriate. 1287-1288 ("Whether [an applicant's] proven, governed [AEDPA]").[2] follows refutes applicant's otherwise precludes recognized point cases, holding issues resolved reference record." Totten Merkle, 137 1172, 1176 (1998) (emphasis deleted) (affirming denial "fl[ew] face logic [the deliberate acts which easily discernible record"). This approach unique Circuit. Anderson General Kan., 425 853, 858-859 2005) (holding contravened existing record); cf. Clark Johnson, 202 760, 767 (C.A.5 2000) failed clear findings); Campbell Vaughn, 209 280, 290 (C.A.3 (same). principle accords AEDPA's acknowledged purpose "reduc[ing] delays execution sentences." Woodford Garceau, 538 202, 206, 123 1398, 155 363 (2003) (citing supra, 386, 1495 (opinion STEVENS, J.) ("Congress wished curb delays, prevent `retrials' habeas, effect convictions extent possible law")). If were allow develop most insubstantial hearings, forced reopen disputes conclusively mind, we turn case. III For several reasons, believed might Court, therefore, denying To contrary, well within benefit A addressed State's *1941 offer issued instruction, investigate prejudicial Strickland. "the (on appeal) Superior review)" introduce According Circuit, took colloquy context manner "amounts Upon material courts, disagree. As threshold matter, language plainly indicates informed affirmatively. Likewise, answered, "Not These statements establish reasonable. And worth noting, again, presiding ideally situated assessment discussed him. Notwithstanding plainness statements, they referred specific planned offer due investigate, known wants explore. dispels interpretation. First, overlaps present. example, "confirm [his mother's] during her pregnancy." shows call "drug us[e] pregnancy," D-10, effects use. Second, mitigating. He regular one point. D-6, confirms plain transcript colloquy: undermined uncovered. before us, facts. regard, agree initial reviewed case: "In constellation refusals surely bright star. No illuminate mind nature dilemma quite brightly one. flashes insight more fulgurous than supplies." 272 1221, 1226 2001). reasonably *1942 "instructed attention [sentencing] court," F-4, conclude overcome 2254(d)(2)'s bar regardless information uncovered investigation, Accordingly, recalcitrance, prejudice B alternative reasons inability showing potential and, thus, 1 claims "`frivolous' `meritless' States precedent." 2254(d)(1)). founded belief, derived Wiggins Smith, 539 510, 2527, 156 471 (2003), "Landrigan's apparently last-minute Neither nor addresses situation client interferes efforts Wiggins, 523, 2527 ("[W]e focus Wiggins' background itself reasonable" added deleted)). Indeed, never like this. Rompilla Beard, 545 374, 381, 125 2456, 162 360 relied, defendant assist development case, inform presented. short, time decision, objectively 2 does indicate "informed knowing," 647, "[t]he dialogue tells us understanding consequences decision." imposed knowing" requirement upon defendant's Cf., Iowa Tovar, 541 77, 88, 124 1379, 158 (2004) (explaining waiver knowing intelligent). Even assuming, exists it, three reasons. *1943 courts.[3] Rather, argued complied offered. Thus, properly 2254(e)(2) basis. presence, told carefully importance "especially concerning fact seeking penalty." counsel, duty disclose "any factors th[e][c]ourt consideration regarding demonstrated interjecting himself proceedings, doubtful sat idly lied conceded oral ensure knowingly intelligently Tr. Oral Arg. 26. Third, overlooked final court: apparent understood telling "as [he was] concerned," aware. IV erred rejecting Court's finding poor quality prevented making prejudice. C-46. summarized Appeals, evidence: "[that] exposed utero, resulted cognitive behavioral deficiencies consistent fetal syndrome. abandoned suffered abandonment attachment issues, problems throughout childhood. His adoptive alcoholic, own substance began early age. violence, genetically predisposed violence." 649. above, last refer allowed them way proffer. D-21. difference sentencing. sum, *1944 wishes offer. weak, exceedingly past seen hand belligerent behavior. Again, improve panel's conclusion: "The prospect chilling; 30 age, man, one, prison, months still man. aptly put dealing claims, `[i]n comments [to judge], show remorse flaunted menacing behavior.' record, assuring genetics helpful. There prejudice." 1229 (citations footnote V declining assuming truth sought 2254(d)(2) seeks result. circumstances, deny judgment reversed, opinion. ordered. whom SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER join, dissenting. Significant evidenceevidence respondent's unruly capital hearing unknown Only later learn suffers serious psychological condition sheds important earlier actions. reason unavailable constitutionally investigation. (2003). spite this, holds impact inadequate representation. "would have" waived uncovered, ante, 1941-1942, 1943, anyway, 1943. Without pure guesswork. parsimonious appraisal constitutional reflect meaningful see, Abdul-Kabir Quarterman, 550 ___, 1654, 167 585 (2007); Skipper South Carolina, 476 106 1669, 90 (1986); Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978), begrudging *1945 appreciation need intelligent protected rights, Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 93 2041, 36 854 (1973); Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461 (1938), cramped reading record. Unlike accounted considerations. Its narrow affirmed. 312, 318, (1963); (2000 ed., Supp. IV). seriously contends sufficient. U.S., 521, 2527; 688, majority dissenting judges agreed "counsel's limited professional representation prevailing" 2006) (Bea, J., dissenting); 643-645 ("On appears comparison results minimal [counsel] amount available leaves grave doubts received effective penalty phase proceeding"). list long. instance, complete evaluation respondent, organic brain disorder. consult expert mother's drinking pregnancy. developed childhood familya marked physical emotional neglect parents, overdose eighth ninth grade classroom), stunted education, recurrent placement rehabilitation facilities, psychiatric ward, police custody. Declaration Shannon Sumpter, 180-192. Counsel's glaring "received history." D-21.[1] prepared By measure, especially meager "fell objective reasonableness." Strickland, 2052. *1946 Given deficient issue outcome bulk argues 1940-1943. shall explain, finds support Constitution citizen's knowing, intelligent, voluntary. back "`indulge every waiver' fundamental rights.'" 464, 1019. Since then, "[w]e unyielding our insistence rights given `knowing' `intelligent.'" Illinois Rodriguez, 497 177, 183, 2793, 111 148 (1990) 1461). Twenty-five Bustamonte crucial content jurisprudence rights. Zerbst's applied consent search seizure. determining not, turned "vast between protect fair guaranteed Fourth Amendment." 241, 2041. explained: `intelligent' articulated validity reliability truth-determining process .... Almost without exception, guarantees order preserve trial." 236-237, ran through extensive knowing-and-intelligent-waiver already applied.[2] Zerbst "waiver trial-type situations,"[3] pleas, said "carefully scrutinized accused trial."[4] 238, emphasis *1947 clear, went state: "A strict insure will accorded greatest opportunity utilize facet model trial. Any conducted derogation open possibility unfair result precisely protections specified provided.... effort unknowingly relinquished Framers thought indispensable 241-242, unmistakable makes specifically "imposed `informed knowing' Ante, 1942. firmly established[5] exercised defendant, authority paramount importancein some Schneckloth. Our longstanding precedentfrom cites, (2004)[6]requires adduce such, completely law 2254(d)(1). Respondent's qualify precedents. understand why, remember arose. brought freestanding waive Keeney Tamayo-Reyes, 504 112 1715, 318 (1992) (considering plea Brief 20 ("Landrigan witnesses"); Part III, infra. failing posture, *1948 nothing short baffling. 1942-1943. become issue. Waiver became concern answer: (1) evidence; (2) "[s]ince `explore evidence.'" instructive prong now, "claim" meaning adequately investigating presenting argumentparticularly response party fundamentally Cf. Yee Escondido, 503 519, 534, 1522, 153 (1992).[7] purported appreciated performance. psychologist, Dr. Mickey McMahon, interview McMahon submitted affidavit stating experience "quite relationship [he] study series steps." 247. "not authorized next step testing [him] neuropsychological deficits observed interview." 246. though "much work needed appropriate ibid., let further.[8] *1949 thorough Abdul-Kabir, S.Ct. 1673-74 (recognizing "possible neurological damage" evidence). Years McMahon's aborted examination, Thomas C. Thompson, analysis interviews members, history, multiple clinical tests, Thompson diagnosed Antisocial Personality Disorder. 149. describing diagnosis: "[Respondent's] actions constitute lifestyle choice individual operating large degree freedom, come define free will. inherited, prenatal, developmental severely impaired ability function society expects individuals operate organized adaptive manner, taking their behaviors members. along data, type responsible functioning simply beyond go, indication ever capacities." 160. day ex-wife. None waiver. Yet conspicuously avoids mention instead provides incomplete incorrectly assumes covered all. 1941, Unless missed portion indicating trained psychologists, neither true many pieces contributed Thompson's subsequent diagnosis. age six months, 147; 146-147; "affective disturbances chronic alcoholism," 148; routinely drank vodka until passed out, 184; frequently strike him, once "hit[ting him] frying pan hard enough leave dent," 185; exhibited bad temper often threw tantrums child, 182; "began getting trouble using adolescence, begun placements juvenile detention twice programs," 148. Perhaps amphetamines pregnancy, utero exposure deleterious child. 155-156. things, assume *1950 psychologist could. advanced education complicated testing, experiences disorder proper purportedly error. Hill Lockhart, 474 52, 58-59, 366, 88 203 (1985). acknowledging lacked information, clings discussion places great weight "duty `any sentencing.'" Leaving aside "importance evidence"let alone knowledge "`any all'" evidencecounsel's abstract explanation satisfy demands significant Battenfield 236 1215, 1229-1233 2001) invalid "no available"); Coleman Mitchell, 268 417, 447-448 (C.A.6 2001); 1379. putative fully informed, court" contradicted nevertheless defers finding, concluding "unreasonable facts" "[I]n habeas," "deference imply abdication judicial review." Miller-El Cockrell, 537 322, 340, 1029, 154 931 careful examination "record courts," reads following exchange definitive proof evidence," ibid.: D-3 infers disruptive *1951 uncovered." 1941. entire proceeding. above-quoted came immediately lengthy counsel: "MR. FARRELL: Your Honor, ex-wife, Ms. Sandy second witness natural mother, Virginia Gipson. believe people client. However, anyone behalf today. talked Sandra number times confirmed Gipson, attention. them, talking Jeff today, their, son ex-husband, behalf. Why not? Basically wishes, Honor. effectively represent factors, adamant subpoena, flown ex-wife." D-2 added). answers judge's questions read discussion. circumstances," proceeding "from mother.[9] What more, necessarily infected investigate. *1952 dispute 47 intent broad but, instead, merely ex-wife"). change unaware words circumstances" disorder, medical abusive upbringing family.[10] meant explained, "[h]ad types able circumstances." simple "Yeah" concerned" waiving petitioner While correct written 1995five Although memory deserves deference, reflects flaws Instead reexamining transcript, quoted two-question unlike repeated Her consists unsupported summary supports holding, least broader counsel. insists concedes 37 ("`[Judge Kozinski]: There's [state court] inference investigation? that... goes attitude allowing investigate? [Counsel State]: agree'" Argument Audio 43:55-44:30)). long permitted *1953 assertions. 126. best position gave blanket instructions wrong decide developed. afterthought, offer." 1943-1944. cold "weak," emphasizing "exceedingly past" "belligerent behavior" concludes introduce. reasoning flawed respects. above bears repeating, thoroughly misrepresents too easy view "weak" away powerful ignores outbursts sentencing.[11] mistakenly testified inaccurately states described turbulent family. kind influence sentencer's punishment. 535, ("[E]vidence character society, defendants commit attributable disadvantaged [or mental problems] less culpable excuse" omitted)); Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 115, 102 869, 71 (1982) ("[T]here doubt beatings harsh father, severe disturbance particularly relevant"). here convinced sentencer relied strong be.[12] sure, committed offenses. *1954 Williams, 368, (2000) (noting confessed "two separate assaults elderly victims," woman "`vegetative state'"); 398, graphic description Williams' childhood, filled privation, reality `borderline mentally retarded,' influenced jury's moral culpability."). factor crime gain[13]but that. "[t]here aggravator. apartment ransacked perpetrator looking something, gain, actually steal value." 649 ignore past, certainly possibleeven likelythat syndrome, blameworthiness altered substantiated Townsend, 745. end, increasingly familiar guard floodgates litigation. Immediately turning courts." 1940. requiring hearings "few number," "there classification burdened dockets Keeney, 24, 1715 (KENNEDY, dissenting). passage 1996, 1.17% cases. Report Courts Study Committee Subcommittee Role Relation (Mar. 12, 1990) (Richard Posner, Chair), Committee, Working Papers Reports 468-515 (July 1990). figure abundantly *1955 doing justice always cause heavens fall. heed KENNEDY's reminder ought steps diminish likelihood [federal] base legal accurate facts." (dissenting opinion). outweigh past. questions. emphatically refuse respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] prohibits bases 2254(e)(2). [2] below, recognizing point, reject certain futile. [3] motion raise new rehearing. Byers, 126 139, 142, 613 299, 302 (App.1980), overruled grounds, Pope, 130 253, 635 846 (1981) (en banc). troubling clues find noted, sent letter explaining "(1) alcoholic walk around nude front row Arkansas `blood link Darrel messed up whole life,' (3) `Jeff needs help did.'" 644 follow leads. Brookhart Janis, 384 86 1245, 16 314 (1966) (right confrontation); Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 63 236, 87 (1942) trial); Barker Wingo, 407 514, 92 2182, 33 101 (1972) (the speedy Green States, 355 184, 78 221, 199 (1957) double jeopardy). Smith 337 137, 69 1000, 1264 (1949) (waiver privilege compulsory self-incrimination administrative agency); Emspak 349 190, 75 687, 99 997 (1955) congressional committee); re Gault, 387 1428, 18 527 (1967) proceeding). [4] McCarthy 394 459, 89 1166, 22 418 (1969); Boykin Alabama, 395 1709, 23 274 Von Moltke Gillies, 332 708, 68 316, 309 (1948); Uveges Pennsylvania, 335 437, (1948). [5] 1654 Brewer 1706, 622 (1978). [6] 81, 1379 ("Waiver generally, `knowing, ac[t] done sufficient awareness circumstances'" Brady 742, 748, 1463, 25 747 (1970); added)). [7] misapplies "[u]nder opening clause basis lack diligence, greater fault, prisoner prisoner's counsel." 420, 432, 1479, 435 "Diligence depends attempt, time, pursue court." 435, 1479. petition, impression Once otherwise, n. 3. consequence today's prisoners file anticipation genuine claims. advance "[the 1996's] reduc[ing] 1940 [8] investigator named George LaBash similar hired look ask much." LaBash, 242. fact, spent 13 hours frustrating." 242-243. [9] disregards contextual cluethat requested 30-day continuances consented each 10, 12-13, 15. explain. Similarly, cooperated assisted gathering records, freely met McMahon. D-3; 12; 129. man [10] Contrary contention, 1943-1944, sister Petition Post-Conviction Relief, ("Petitioner's sister, verified Mrs. disease impacted adversely Petitioner growing up. She would, moreover, provided familial preceded partial Petitioner's sentencing"). [11] 149 (stating tests "deficits processing, adaptability, surroundings others, impulse control" added)); 150 antisocial personality typically act "irresponsibl[y] across areas daily lives decisions impulsivity" [12] terse relies heavily colorful quote original panel, declines switched vote joined [13] assertions, courtroom factor. Compare D-17 D-18. "acted appropriately courtroom" "good." D-22. important, mere "release frustration," ibid.not most, treated credit "good" circumstance. event, listed Arizona's statute. Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. 13-703(F) (West Supp.2006).

Category: 0