Document: Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LAWRENCE JOSEPH JEFFERSON v. STEPHEN UPTON, WARDEN ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09–8852. Decided May 24, 2010 PER CURIAM. Petitioner Lawrence Jefferson, who has been sentenced to death, claimed in both state and federal courts that his lawyers were constitutionally inadequate because they failed investigate a traumatic head injury he suf fered as child. The court rejected claim after making finding the attorneys advised by an expert such investigation was unnecessary. Under governing statute, factual is pre sumed correct unless any one of eight exceptions applies. See 28 U.S. C. §§2254(d)(1)–(8) (1994 ed.). But Court Appeals considered only those (specifi cally §2254(d)(8)). And on basis, it itself “duty-bound” accept court’s finding, re jected Jefferson’s claim. Because did not fully consider several remaining potentially applicable exceptions, we vacate its judgment remand. I When Jefferson child, “suffered serious jury head.” Terry, 490 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1326 (ND Ga. 2007); see id., at 1320 (quoting mother’s testimony “a car ran over top head” when two years old). accident left skull swollen misshapen forehead visibly scarred. Hall, 570 F.3d 1283, 1311, 1315, n. 4 (CA11 2009) (Carnes, J., dissenting). During District proceedings below, uncontroverted experts testified 2 UPTON that, result injury, “perma nent brain damage” “causes abnormal behavior” which “has no or substantially limited control.” 2d, 1321–1322. According these experts, condition causes “ ‘emotional dullness,’ ” ‘rest less aggressive characteristics,’ ‘impulsiveness,’ ‘temper outbursts,’ ‘markedly diminished impulse control,’ ‘impaired social judgment,’ ‘transient outbursts rage are totally inconsistent with normal behavioral pattern.’ Id., 1322, 1327. further ‘severe cognitive disabilities’ ‘profoundly alter’ ‘ability plan coordinate actions, be aware conse quences behavior, engage premeditated intentional acts.’ neither psychotic nor retarded. 1319. Thus, said, lay observer even professional psycholo gist, does outwardly appear mentally im paired. Indeed, according ‘the behavior may from’ ‘could, without administration proper testing, mistaken for voli tional.’ 1322. faced death sentence killing co worker while men fishing. 1271–1272. Prior trial, examined psychologist named Dr. Gary Dudley, prepared formal report concluded mental deficiencies do impair ‘his decision-making capacity.’ F.3d, 1294 report). Dudley’s included caveat: ‘One possibility could explored [Jefferson’s] incarceration sequelae,’ i.e., pathologies, related ‘head experienced during childhood.’ Ibid. ‘In my opinion,’ wrote, ‘it would worthwhile conduct neuropsychological evaluation this individual rule out organic etiology,’ damage. 3 Although “it undisputed testing” Dudley recommended “could have easily performed,” pos sessed police reports hospital records recounting 1323, Jef ferson tested. At sentencing, presented testi mony from prison guards, stated unproblematic inmate, three members family, “responsible, generous, gentle, kind” person good father.” 1290–1291. mother briefly mentioned accident, “she ques tioned offer regarding impact, if any, had him.” 1291. “[a]s far knew, suffer damage neurological impairment; disorders”; “his emotional stability, control, perfectly normal.” 1311 sought habeas relief court, arguing trial unreasonably pursue brain-damage testing. In response, testing because, delivering written report, later told them ‘may waste time rest [his] report’ ‘said [Jefferson] non psychotic.’ 1295 (quot ing testimony). testify hearing, but submitted sworn affidavit denying ever made statements. He said al ways opinion ‘that necessary’ wrote much “he ‘meant it.’ 1312 dissenting) affidavit). added, ‘I never, before suggested [Jefferson’s attor neys] necessary worthwhile.’ Ibid.; cf. Pet. Cert. 17, 12. contends, State disputed, hearing state-court judge con tacted ex parte. pri vate conversation attorneys, asked State’s draft court. 3, request him, informed opposing counsel. 12, 8, 13; also Zant, 263 316, 431 S.E.2d 110, 111 (1993) (“Jefferson contends [the order] amounts more than reply brief [he] chance respond”). “Dr. led attorneys] believe simply [i]s psychotic.” Civ. Action 87–V–1241 (Super. Ct. Butts Cty., Ga., Oct. 7, 1992), p. 16, App. 16 (hereinafter Order); 37. “specifically credits regard their efforts Petitioner’s condition.” 18; 36. relying find ings, concludes “made rea sonable into health” thus ineffective. Notably, Georgia Supreme acknowledged, discusses statements purportedly behalf witness “who testify” participate proceedings. 318, S.E. 112; Order 24–25. Nonetheless, opin ion “was adopted verbatim [state] court.” 111. recognized ‘criticized’ prac tice, affirmed judgment. 317, 320, E. 5 112, 114 Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 572 (1985)). II next Dis trict Court. opening brief, argued “there reason under principles comity otherwise give deference findings Habeas Corpus Court.” Brief 1:96–CV–989–CC Ga.), Doc. 105, 4, Brief). support argument, “merely signed order drafted revision single word,” though “described witnesses never testified.” process “rais[es] doubts whether judge] read, carefully consid ered, proposed State.” ruled favor. It noted relevant statute “factual presumed . enumerated applies.” 1280; 1280, (listing exceptions). acknowledged “the corpus failure explain basis” credibility findings. 1324, 17. accepted ineffec tive assistance counsel disturbing believed should prevail accepting true. 1324–1325. On appeal, defended Court’s judg ment primarily own terms. factfinding “dubious best” light employed, therefore “should harbor about fact determinations record.” Petitioner/Appellee 07– 6 12502 (CA11), pp. 31–32, 10 A divided panel reversed, Jeffer son filed petition certiorari asking us review ineffective And, so doing, challenges—as Court, Appeals—“the ings court,” given what describes deficient procedure employed reviewing 11–13, 18, 13 (re counting ‘reason[s] doubt’ findings). Cf. Lebron National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 374, 379 (1995) (stating standard preserving issue Court). III This application prior enactment Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 governed law existed point. Lindh Murphy, 521 326–336 (1997). 1963, set forth “appropri ate standard” applied “federal corpus” facts” pertinent “are dispute.” Townsend Sain, 372 293, 312. We held applicant afforded full fair resulting reliable findings” district “ordinarily facts found” judge. 318. However, “if receive evidentiary either collateral proceeding,” “must hold hearing” resolve “explain[ed] controlling criteria” enumerat six circumstances hear required: “(1) merits dispute resolved 7 hearing; (2) determina tion fairly supported record whole; (3) fact-finding adequate afford ing; (4) there substantial allegation newly dis covered evidence; (5) material ade quately developed (6) appears trier ing.” 313 (emphasis added). Three later, 1966, Congress enacted amendment almost codification standards delineated Sain.” Miller Fenton, 474 104, (1985). That read part follows: “In proceeding instituted Federal writ custody pursuant determination issue, competent jurisdiction , shall correct, establish appear, respondent admit— “(2) “(3) adequately de veloped “(4) lacked subject matter proceeding; “(5) indigent deprivation constitutional right, 8 appoint represent him “(6) full, fair, “(7) denied due “(8) considera relevant] whole cludes §2254(d) As clear statutory text quoted above, correctly stated, “one applies” then correct.” accord, Miller, supra, 105 (“Under §2254(d), ‘shall correct’ applies”); R. Hertz & J. Liebman, Practice Procedure §20.2c, 915–918 (5th ed. 2005). consistently about” “give to” “findings determinations” exclusively parte judge, notify counsel, verba tim recounted evidence nonexistent witness. See, e.g., 32, 10; 1; These arguments deficient. other words, “did Town 9 send, Or, use language, “factfinding procedure,” “hearing,” “proceeding” “full, adequate.” §§2254(d)(2), (6), (7). presumption correctness. Instead, invoked Circuit precedent paragraph (8) which, codifying second exception, U.S., 313, lifts correctness “not 1300 Jackson Herring, 42 1350, 1366 1995), turn quoting “recognize[d]” produced ‘dubious best,’ ‘harbor about’ ‘findings credibility,’ nonetheless ‘entitled correctness’ apply. 1304, 10). explicitly defer “Jefferson courts’ ‘not record,’ direct reference §2254(d)(8) exception. cluded: “Based ha beas courts—all cord—we reasonable deciding testing.” 1304 our view, properly sider legal status Townsend, codified all “fairly Those words come §2254(d)(8), seven others, §§2254(d)(1)– (7), none addressing To sure, previ ously cases applying court” overturn conclusion “unless ‘fairly cord.’ Parker Dugger, 498 308, 320 (1991) (grant rejecting §2254(d)(8)); Demosthenes Baal, 495 731 (1990) (per curiam) (applying post, (SCALIA, suggestion provisions enu merated issue. case here. treating exclusive failing address argument procedures deprived deference, precedents incorrectly. “verbatim adop prevailing parties” treated criticized practice. Anderson, 572. lawfulness of, applica to, practice where (1) solicits parte, provide party opportunity criticize submit own, adopts contain internal suggesting them. 568; Code Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4) (prohibit judicial communications). decline determine first instance 11 apply case, see, Cutter Wilkinson, 544 709, 718, (2005), especially sur rounding undeveloped. Respondent conceded final verbatim, 111, disputed solicited “ex notice” seek Petitioner,” 8. precise nature tran spired known. 316–317, (noting “had respond” order); 13. Accordingly, lower remand warrant correctness, appropriate resolution 313–319; Keeney Tamayo-Reyes, 504 (1992). holding, express Sixth Amendment rights violated assum * motion pro ceed forma pauperis granted. vacated, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. SCALIA, dissenting JUSTICE whom THOMAS joins, dissenting. question rendered declined childhood injury. view answer (as prefer) deny petition. sum marily vacates altogether different ground raised passed upon below within sole presented. make matters worse, conjures up “error” respect misquoting mischaracterizing Appeals’ opinion, ante, 9–10, overlooking author ity respectfully dissent. version ed.) provided “shall correct,” proves, admits, deter mines §2254(d)(1)– Eleventh misapplied provision “as exception” §2254(d)(2), (7) might bar presumption.1 Ante, 10. however, anyone (in cluding Jefferson) heard argument. briefs discussion citation sub section (d)—let alone paragraphs (2), (7)—and understandably appli cation provisions. longstanding end matter. Penn sylvania Dept. Corrections Yeskey, 524 206, 212– 213 (1998). insists, 5–6, 8–9, squint long enough can challenge cogni zable handful isolated, vague musters (buried hundreds pages briefs) show thing. point 5, consists (and accompanying two-sentence footnote) “Prior Proceedings” 180-page brief. Final Eviden tiary Proposed Findings Fact Conclusions —————— four were: consideration rele vant] determi nation .” Law, Record is: entering Judge Newton merely revi sion word.” 4. footnote adds: “[T]he described wit nesses testified, raising doubt considered, State. circumstance, ap parently deliberation issues raised.” Ibid., 1. passing unwar ranted is, put mildly, elliptical way argue inadequate, §2254(d)(6), nied law, §2254(d)(7). appeared, emphasize again, Brief, consisting 164 containing sepa rate assignments error XLIV (44), makes mention today relies. assignment basis petition, VI, 47–80, challenged clusion attorneys’ fuller inves tigation suffered child performance Strickland Washington, 466 668 (1984). raise Circuit. His “[f]indings tions reviewed error.” Peti tioner/Appellee, 07–12502, 16–17 declared “The Cor rectly Deferred Court” adjudicating ineffective-assistance-of-counsel 21 (capitalization boldface type deleted); 29, 31. ineffective-assistance claim, “[t]he 24. charac terize gener ally “dubious” “serious doubts” them, once dubiousness consequence meet requirements (7)—or generally §2254(d). pressed same Court: Even forgo 31–33, 50–51. Nor pass now addresses. 1319–1320 2007). true, including findings, 1323–1324, law” objectively unreasonable investigate” effect, capacity health, 1324. Concluding thereby prejudiced, ordered new sen tencing hearing. 1328. disagreed holding Strickland. 1301–1309 2009). framework §2254(d): “Pre-AEDPA, questions mixed viewed novo, ‘subject correctness.’ Freund Butterworth, 165 839, 861 (11th Cir. 1999). disregarded if, example, cord,’ 1995) §2254(d)(8)), construed ‘presumption stan dard ‘clear error’ review.” added; omitted). Confronted §2254(d)(1)–(7) must disregard questions. required record. 1303–1304, doing so, note[d] questioned defense’s psychiatric expert] [one ney’s] time, despite [his attorney’s] ‘may’ time.” 1303, added “point particular clearly erroneous,” 8—applying 3. dissent agreed “obliged accept” credibil determination, “reasons it.” (opinion Carnes, J.). cite instead focused occupied son’s briefs, major ity’s opinion: whether, ferson’s coun sel. parties below. B bad decides courts. worse address. Rule 14.1(a), “[o]nly therein, will most exceptional cases, reasons urgency economy suggest need unpresented consideration.” Yee Escon dido, 503 519, 535 (1992) (citation quotation marks presents question: “[W]hether majority affording counsel’s decision limit scope penalty ‘higher-than-strong reasonableness’ [sic] conflicts announced Williams Taylor, 529 362 (2000), Wiggins Smith, 539 510 (2003), Rompilla Beard, 545 374 Porter McCollum, 130 447 (2009).” i. straightforward correction decisions, anything pre-AEDPA necessarily encompass determin “related to,” “perhaps complementary petitioner presented,” therein.” Yee, 537 (internal body petition: Far invoking §2254(d)’s subsection (d), let There anywhere entitled “Reasons Granting Writ,” claims, 6, sufficiently characterizations “Statement Case” [peti tioner] discussed bring us. 14.1(a) requires subsidiary review.’ Wood Allen, 558 ___, ___ (slip op., 13) Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Philips Corp., 27, 31, curiam)). event, cited passages remotely present They inapplicable describe assert (but presumption), premise adversarial system appellate sit self-directed boards inquiry research, essentially arbiters them.” Car ducci Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (CADC 1983) Scalia, Our refusal abide rules unfair Circuit, whose vacates, respon dent here, suffers loss having statu tory decides. approach objectionable went astray. not. treat true opinion—as well dissent’s—discussed §2254(d)(8). brought attention. reading owe Elev enth Circuit’s asserts, ignored “invoked §2254(d).” 9. nothing sort. “may §2254(d)(8)).” expressly example grounds disre garding cited, similarly imply, hold, setting aside 1366. Next, states: “And ‘recognize[d]’ proc ess ‘ best,” ’ “harbor credibility,” Ap peals “entitled correctness” 10).” Again, plucked isolated language here produce suggests with, least contest, “seri ous doubts.” so. reasoned “duty-bound clear, unambiguous, precedes panel’s analysis—in eight—regarding omits actual explanation declining credit general characterization quality record, erroneous, says ‘[t]he dispute.’ By way, carelessly manner suggests, done. For 731, 735 curiam), record.’ §2254(d)(8).” (1991), explained “is conclu ”2 Generally speaking, power duly entered error. More specifically, except intervening development (such subsequently ours) attempts distinguish contained “no enumer ated issue,” whereas “[t]hat here.” already noted, “suggestion” (let argument) means some process-type noises, true—and indeed true—of Demosthenes. Parker, “crux [petitioner’s] contentions” “fail[ed] adequately” 313. Demosthenes, Ninth determining capital inmate defi cient ‘a competence held.’ 736 Baal Godinez, 90–15716 (CA9, June 2, 1990), 5). alter cannot grant peti certiorari, (GVR) obtain re-do. Webster Cooper, (2009) 3). Yet commit, previously raised, remands tensive affect taxonomy increasingly unprincipled GVR practice, creature genus “Summary Remand Extensive Opinion Requested” (SRMEOPR). 4). distinctly odious species, deserving name: Summary Ponder Point Raised Neither Here Below (SRPPRNHB).

Category: 0