Court Opinion

ID: 9629386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:41:58.351836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:13.118379
License: Public Domain

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because Morales has not proven actual prejudice from his counsel’s alleged defective performance, and therefore cannot establish ineffective assistance of counsel as a matter of law under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). I would therefore reverse the district court’s partial grant of Morales’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
*943This Court has held that “[t]he failure to present additional mitigating evidence that is ‘merely cumulative’ of that already presented does not” equate to prejudice. Broom v. Mitchell, 441 F.3d 392, 410 (6th Cir.2006). Rather, “[i]n order to establish prejudice, the new evidence ... must differ in a substantial way — in strength and subject matter — from the evidence actually presented at sentencing.” Hill v. Mitchell, 400 F.3d 308, 319 (6th Cir.2005). The “new” evidence as presented in post-conviction proceedings does not meet this standard.
The “New” Evidence Is Not New
The majority suggests that certain “key” witnesses,1 if presented during the penalty phase of trial,2 would have testified to: (1) the history of alcohol abuse in Morales’s family; (2) the poor emotional health and early death of Morales’s maternal stepsister; (3) the fact that Morales’s older brother was mentally disabled and exhibited behavioral problems, and that Morales had to protect him; (4) the separation of Morales’s parents when Morales was young and lack1 of stability in Morales’s home environment; (5) Morales’s lack of discipline and drug and alcohol use at a young age; (6) Morales’s violent nature while drinking; (7) Morales’s failure to graduate from high school; (8) the denial of Morales’s request for treatment for his alcoholism while incarcerated prior to the murder. But testimony pertaining to each of these matters had in fact been presented.
First: According to the majority, Morales’s mother, father, aunt, and uncle would have testified to the prevalence of alcoholism in Morales’s immediate and extended family, including the fact that some members of his extended family even died of cirrhosis of the liver due to their alcohol abuse. Although none of the defense witnesses testified directly about the extent of alcohol abuse among Morales’s family members, there was testimony concerning the prevalence of alcoholism during Morales’s upbringing and the heightened susceptibility of Native Americans to alcoholism. During the guilt phase, Morales’s father testified that “drinking was pretty heavy all around us” on the reservation. (J.A. 848). Furthermore, the majority opinion notes that three witnesses also testified for the defense regarding the suscep*944tibility of Native Americans to alcoholism. (J.A. 874-76; 877-82; 883-84.) Hugh Hosick, the Executive Director of North American Indian Cultural Center testified that there “[s]eems to be a physical need, a desire for these people to continue drinking,” and that “it’s an accepted practice within the Native American community to do a lot of ... consumption.” (J.A. 1508.) Milton Fletcher, a Program Coordinator for the North American Indian Cultural Center, testified that “alcohol has an adverse effect ... on American Indians,” and that “they ha[ve] a predisposition for alcohol,” “a genetic and biological difference than other races of people about how alcohol effects them different[ly].” (J.A. 1512.) Jerome Warcloud, the Executive Director of the Cleveland American Indian Center, testified that “Native American people are most acutely affected by alcoholism than any other race or ethnic group in the nation.” (J.A. 884.) And the majority opinion acknowledges Dr. Politzer’s testimony that Morales has a “biological breed disposition to become alcoholic or intoxicated.” (J.A. 943.) Thus, even had Morales’s mother, father, aunt, and uncle testified on this matter, their testimony would not have added substantially to the evidence the jury heard.
Second: The majority states that Morales’s mother and aunt would have testified that Morales’s half-sister was emotionally disturbed and eventually committed suicide when she was twenty-two years old. Although the jury did not hear this, the jury learned from Morales himself of how his sister’s death affected him. During the penalty phase, Morales stated:
I had a sister who died when I was nine years old, and my father and my mother told me not to cry. And I didn’t cry. But I didn’t understand why she died or anything. But, I hated my parents because they didn’t — I felt that they didn’t tell me the truth about what had really happened.
(J.A. 960.) Thus, it is difficult to see how the testimony of Morales’s mother and aunt could have been more mitigating than what Morales told the jury in his own words.
Third: The majority states that Morales’s mother, father, and cousin would have testified as to the mental disability of Morales’s brother and Morales’s obligation to protect him from his peers. Again, the jury learned from Morales himself that he had an older brother who was abusive towards him. In his unsworn statement, Morales stated that he had a brother “who used to beat me all the time, and I couldn’t understand it,” and that his older brother “put my hate into him so bad, and up to this day I still don’t — I still don’t understand why he is like he is.” (J.A. 960.) In addition, Dr. Politzer testified that her social history of Morales indicated that Morales’s “older brother was abusive towards him and frequently there would be difficulties between him and the older brother in the home.” (J.A. 890.) And again, it is difficult to see how the proposed mitigating evidence could have been more powerful than Morales’s own reflections.
Fourth: The majority states that the former principal of Morales’s high school would have testified that Morales “was a victim of an inadequate home environment which lacked stability.” However, evidence of the separation of Morales’s parents during Morales’s youth and the lack of stability in Morales’s home environment was presented through the testimony of both Morales’s father and Dr. Politzer, as well as Morales himself. During the guilt phase, Morales’s father testified that he and Morales had moved from Cleveland, Ohio to Susanville, California, and then back to Cleveland. (J.A. 847-49.) He also testified that he and Morales’s mother were separated for a time. (J.A. 849.) As the majority acknowledges, Dr. Politzer *945testified that Morales “came from a relatively intact family, but a very chaotic family situation.” She also testified that Morales was twelve when his parents separated temporarily.” The majority quotes extensively from Dr. Politzer’s testimony in which she described Morales’s difficulty with staying in school and his eventual dropping out. (J.A. 890.)
And Morales himself told the jury in his unsworn statement during the penalty phase that:
I don’t remember how young I was when I started drinking, but I know it was a young age, because of the fact that I couldn’t deal with a lot of things. And growing up in the school and in the environment that I was in, I wasn’t able to accept a lot of things. And I couldn’t understand why I had started drinking, but because of the lack of understanding I began to drink because I was tired of people making fun of me, and I was tired of people treating me the way they did.
(J.A. 960.) He also described his unhappiness upon his return to Cleveland, stating that he was picked on, and that he did not have any friends until he met Jesse Trevino during the ninth grade. (J.A. 959-61.) The proposed testimony of the former principal of Morales’s high school on this matter would have added little to what the jury already heard regarding the stability of Morales’s family life.
Fifth: The majority claims that Morales’s mother, father, aunt, and uncle would have testified as to Morales’s neglect as a child, lack of discipline, and drug and alcohol use at a young age. However, as the majority itself notes in its description of the trial testimony, Morales’s father testified that Morales first came home drunk at the age of twelve, and, from 1978 to 1985, Morales’s father estimated that Morales was drunk three to four times a week. (J.A. 852.) In addition, he testified that “I’ve always had problems with him [drinking alcohol]. I never had a lot of liquor in my house. [Morales would] sneak away and drink it and come back with liquor on his breath, and I’d put him to bed when he was 13,14 on up.” He also testified that “as [Morales] got older from 18 on up he was — I’d go by the street and I’d catch him [drinking].” (J.A. 850.)
Furthermore, the majority opinion acknowledges testimony on this subject, as it quotes extensively from the trial transcript in which Dr. Politzer testified that Morales began consuming alcohol at the age of nine, with increasing consumption as he grew older, and also used marijuana, hashish, and a “variety of pills.” (J.A. 891.) She also testified that Morales had difficulty staying in school, eventually dropping out, and that Morales had trouble keeping a job because of alcohol and drug abuse. And Morales stated to the jury that he began drinking at a young age. (J.A. 960.) Thus, by the majority’s own account, the bulk of this evidence was presented to the jury, and the proposed witnesses’s testimony would not have been new.
Sixth: The majority suggests that Morales was prejudiced because the jury did not hear from his cousin, Mike Morales, that Morales had a tendency to become violent and have blackouts when he drank. It is puzzling why the majority would consider this testimony mitigating. Still, evidence of this matter had been presented when Dr. Politzer testified on cross-examination by the State’s counsel that Morales exhibited impulsive and violent behavior when drinking. (J.A. 903.) And Morales stated that:
I was drinking then [while living in California], and up until the time that I had left for Cleveland' — -when I came to Cleveland, the one thing that I always wanted to be, and that was to be tough. Because I was tired of people picking on *946me, and I wanted to get to a point where — where if anybody touched me or hurt me again I would be able to fight instead of balling up and crying somewhere in a corner.
(J.A. 961.) The majority recounted Dr. Politzer’s testimony in which she described how Morales committed various crimes, including felonious assault, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (J.A. 892.) And, as the majority itself noted, Dr. Polit-zer in her testimony described how Morales had a “history of unstable, unpredictable, impulsive, out-of-control, aggressive behaviors that are associated with personality disturbance from an early age.” (J.A. 893.) Clearly, Morales’s cousin’s proposed testimony on this matter would not have been new to the jury.
Seventh: The majority faults Morales’s counsel for not presenting the testimony of Morales’s father and former high school principal, who would have testified that Morales did not graduate from high school and that Morales’s school attendance was “very poor due to the fact that he felt like a social misfit.” Contrary to the majority’s assertion, the jury heard evidence regarding Morales’s failure to graduate from high school, namely when Dr. Politzer testified that Morales had difficulty getting passing grades and staying motivated, and eventually dropped out of high school. (J.A. 890.) The proposed testimony of Morales’s father and the former principal of Morales’s high school on this matter would not have been new.
Eighth: The majority claims that Morales’s father, if called during the penalty phase, would have testified that Morales had requested, but was denied, treatment for his alcoholism while he was incarcerated in the Mansfield Reformatory prior to the murder. During the guilt phase, however, Morales’s father had already testified that he talked to a counselor at the Mansfield Correctional Institution, who informed Morales’s father that Morales had applied for counseling, but was denied because “[tjhere’s no counseling for the inmates that go there.” (J.A. 873.) Moreover, the jury also heard evidence that suggested Morales was not interested in being treated for his alcoholism. As the majority acknowledges, Morales’s father testified that he had an Indian counselor try to get Morales counseling, but Morales “didn’t want to go there.” (J.A. 851.) He further testified an Indian counselor would:
pick Morales up a number of times and take him to the [Alcoholics Anonymous] meetings, and pretty soon [Morales] told me ... “Dad, I don’t smoke,” He says, “If I go over there with that cigarette smell it’s killing me.” I don’t know if he used that if he didn’t want to go or what. So then [the counselor] came back by a few more times to try to get him to go, but he said because of that he wouldn’t go. I also had a friend who went there and we tried to get [Morales] to go and he wouldn’t go.
(J.A. 856.) The proposed testimony of Morales’s father on this matter would have opened the door to damaging information regarding Morales’s lack of interest in receiving treatment.
In short, although the laundry list of purportedly missing items appears substantial at first glance, none of this information differed in strength or subject matter from that which was presented by Morales’s counsel. Thus, its absence cannot, as a matter of law, establish prejudice under Strickland.
The “New” Evidence Would Have Opened the Door to Prejudicial Information
There is another reason why the failure to introduce the post-conviction evidence was not prejudicial. Had Morales’s coun*947sel called the witnesses in question, the door would have been opened to information damaging to Morales. With the door opened, the State would have been permitted under both federal and state law to introduce evidence to rebut the mitigation testimony of the witnesses in question. The United States Supreme Court has explained that sentencing courts have long “exereise[d] a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist [them] in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within limits fixed by law.” Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949). With this in mind, the Supreme Court has held that due process is not violated merely because a sentencing court considers a defendant’s past criminal behavior that did not result in a conviction. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997) (holding that “a jury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence”); cf. Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 748, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994) (holding that a sentencing court may consider the underlying conduct that gave rise to an un-counseled misdemeanor conviction, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence).
Under Ohio’s statutory sentencing scheme, a capital defendant can introduce mitigating evidence pertaining to such factors as the history, character, and background of the offender. See OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2929.04(B) (1981) (stating that the jury is to weigh against the aggravating circumstances, inter alia, “the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history, character, and background of the offender”). The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the State, at the penalty stage of a capital trial, may introduce and comment on “evidence rebutting the exis-fence of any statutorily defined or other mitigating factors first asserted by the defendant.” State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413, 653 N.E.2d 253, 263 (1995); see also id. at 262 (“Once lawfully inserted into the sentencing considerations, admissible evidence is subject to fair comment by both parties.”). So if, for example, a defendant introduces evidence of his history as mitigating evidence, the State could introduce rebuttal evidence as to this mitigating factor, and thus counter the proposition that the defendant’s history is mitigating. See State v. Raglin, 83 Ohio St.3d 253, 699 N.E.2d 482, 490 (1998) (following Gumm for the proposition that “[t]he prosecution was entitled to introduce relevant evidence rebutting the existence of any statutorily defined or other mitigating factor first asserted by the defense,” and holding that “[t]he testimony of the state’s rebuttal witnesses was ... relevant to rebut mitigating evidence that had been offered by the defense that appellant was remorseful for the killing[ and] that he would help or benefit others while serving a term of life imprisonment”).
Much of the damaging evidence that could have been introduced by the State is detailed in the social history report produced by Rick Ruffin, a mitigation specialist for the Ohio Public Defender Commission. Had the witnesses in question testified regarding Morales’s history, character, or background, the jury would have learned that when Morales was growing up, he was disciplined by his father, but the discipline had little effect on Morales. According to Morales’s cousin, “it was like [Morales] didn’t learn how to not get spanked. He just didn’t care if he got spanked. He would cry, then get mean — and take it out on others. He would bully them.” (J.A. 707.) Morales also often stole money from his parents and SSI checks from his mentally retarded older brother to buy drugs and alcohol. *948(J.A. 709.) He stole bicycles and car radios. While intoxicated he threw bricks through windows, cut telephone wires, wrecked cars, punched trees, and got into many fights. (J.A. 709.) While Morales’s father was hospitalized for kidney problems, Morales was arrested “for intoxication and weapons charges.” (J.A. 709.) Morales and his cousin Mike drank in excess and lost the family truck because he was drunk; on another evening, Morales passed out in a hobo camp and could not drive home. (J.A. 709-710.) Morales continued to drink excessively after returning from Cleveland, and committed two assaults against women. (J.A. 710.) One incident involved Morales pushing Louise Vasquez down to the ground and ripping her blouse, and, according to Vasquez, Morales raped her. (J.A. 711.) Morales was incarcerated for a year because of this incident. (J.A. 710.) On another occasion, Morales slapped Yolanda Trevino. (J.A. 711.) According to Ricky Sanchez, a friend of Morales from Cleveland, nobody in the neighborhood trusted Morales because his behavior was so unpredictable. On one occasion Sanchez’s group of friends had to pull Morales off an unconscious opponent because they were afraid he would kill him. (J.A. 711.) Sanchez stated that “[w]hen Joe started to fight,” “it was hard to stop him.” (J.A. 711.) With regard to his relationship with the Trevinos, on one occasion Morales cut the Trevino family’s telephone line; on another, he threw a brick through the their window; and on yet another occasion, Morales chased Toby Trevino with a knife. (J.A. 711.)
Had Morales’s counsel put Morales’s history, background, or character at issue, these instances of Morales’s prior bad acts — which include many instances of violence and cruelty, and an allegation of rape — could have been introduced by the State. And this information, once heard by the jury, could only reinforce Morales’s violent nature in the eyes of the jurors. This Court has commented that “it is far from true that bad testimony beats no testimony at all. Something ... is not always better than nothing given the risk that every positive argument by a defendant potentially opens the door to a more-harmful response.” Tinsley v. Million, 399 F.3d 796, 809-10 (6th Cir.2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted). That the presentation of the post-conviction evidence would likely cause Morales more harm than good should militate against a finding of prejudice.3
This Court’s precedents are consistent with this conclusion. In Carter v. Mitchell, 443 F.3d 517, 533 (6th Cir.2006), this *949Court concluded that a capital petitioner was not prejudiced from his counsel’s failure during the penalty phase to present the testimony of certain family members in order to portray the petitioner’s troubled background, “including his experiences with drugs and alcohol at an early age, his history of violent behavior, his experience with racial prejudice, and the influence of his alcoholic, philandering father.” Id. at 530. The Carter court found that any non-cumulative testimony from the petitioner’s family members would not have been mitigating, noting that their affidavits “describe a relatively stable, although imperfect, family environment,” with “no allegations of physical or sexual abuse of [the petitioner].” Id. at 531. As another reason for declining to find prejudice, the Court stated that “had the family members’ testimony been admitted, the prosecutor would have been free to extract testimony of [the petitioner’s] criminal history, his history of drug use and alcohol abuse, and his notoriously quick temper and violent character.” Id. The Carter court concluded that “[g]iven the lack of mitigating evidence available in this case and the likelihood that the testimony of [the petitioner’s] family members would have done more harm than good, [not calling the petitioner’s family members] was a sound decision.” Id. at 532.
Importantly, the Carter court noted that “the Supreme Court has found more limited investigations into a defendant’s background justified where any evidence presented would have a ‘double edge.’ ” Id. at 532 (citing Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 535, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003); Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987); Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986)). Carter also noted that this Court has declined to find deficient performance in a defense counsel’s “strategic decision to limit testimony about [the defendant’s past in order to prevent ‘opening-the-door’ to evidence of [the defendant’s criminal background!.]” Carter, 443 F.3d at 532 (quoting Clark v. Mitchell, 425 F.3d 270, 286 n. 6 (6th Cir.2005)).
Also instructive is Moore v. Parker, 425 F.3d 250, 254-55 (6th Cir.2005). In Moore, this Circuit again failed to find prejudice regarding a capital petitioner’s claim of penalty-phase ineffective assistance of counsel. The Moore petitioner, like Morales, claimed that his counsel should have presented, for purposes of mitigation, additional testimony concerning the petitioner’s “various problems that began to emerge during childhood, including impulsiveness, poor judgment, behavior control, anger, and harmful emotional attachment to others.” Moore, 425 F.3d at 254. One potential witness included a psychologist who would have testified to “the severe neglect and physical abuse that [the petitioner] endured, nearly forty moves to foster homes and institutions, an alcoholic mother and abusive father,” and that “[the petitioner] and his siblings were left home alone for extended periods of time, and relatives observed the children eating dog food and asbestos because there was no food in the house.” Id. at 266 (Martin, J., dissenting). According to the court, much of the evidence described by the new evidence was presented at sentencing, and the evidence “cast [the petitioner] as an easily angered, impulsive, out-of-control emotional leech with poor judgment.” Moore, 425 F.3d at 254. The Moore court concluded that “introducing more evidence of this background, as [the petitioner] desired, would likely have made him look even worse to the jury. Thus counsel’s failure to seek or present more background evidence was not even deficient performance, let alone prejudicial.” Id.
In Foley v. Parker, 488 F.3d 377, 382 (6th Cir.2007), which the majority mistak*950enly cites as distinguishable, the capital petitioner alleged that his counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase for failing “to fully investigate his background” and failing to “produce any mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of his trial.” The Foley petitioner contended that various individuals, namely “six family members, five friends, and a school teacher who had not seen him since the 1970s,” should have been called to testify on his behalf as mitigation witnesses. Id. at 382-83. The Court acknowledged that some of their testimony could be considered mitigating, in that the petitioner was described as “nice, giving, loving, sweet, a good family man, and a hard worker.” Id. at 383. However, the Court held that the petitioner did not establish prejudice given that much of the post-conviction evidence “was either not mitigating or distinctly negative,” specifically the evidence that “[s]ev-eral witnesses mentioned [the petitioner’s] penchant for violence, a description difficult to reconcile with the positive accounts but consistent with the crimes the jury knew [the petitioner] had committed.” Id. at 383.
In Durr v. Mitchell, 487 F.3d 423, 436 (6th Cir.2007), which the majority also mistakenly cites as distinguishable, the capital petitioner alleged that his counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase for failing to interview and present additional testimony from an ex-girlfriend, his step-father, and two siblings, who would have testified that the petitioner “grew up in a relatively stable home where rules were enforced, and basic needs were met.” The Durr court held that the petitioner failed to establish prejudice because: (1) the post-conviction evidence was cumulative of that already presented; and (2) had the petitioner’s former girlfriend testified, “the prosecution could have introduced rebuttal evidence concerning [the petitioner’s] treatment of other women, including [the petitioner’s] rape convictions.” Id. at 436 (citing Raglin, 699 N.E.2d at 490).
Thus, as in Carter, Moore, Foley, and Durr, the defense counsel’s failure to present allegedly new mitigation evidence cannot possibly be deemed prejudicial. As in these cases, the additional testimony would have made Morales look like a violent and out-of-control drunk who presents a danger to society.
The Majority Misapplies this Circuit’s Caselaw to Find Prejudice
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. Pol-itzer 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 *951mitigating 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.
The “New” Evidence Does Not Alter the Balance Struck By The Jury
To find prejudice, there must be “a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer ... would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. There is no reasonable probability that the jury would have found other than it did. As defense counsel pointed *952out in its opening statement, the facts “painted a masterpiece of horror,” in which Morales:
plotted, planned and lured a young boy to his certain death. Upon reaching a secluded location, appellant coldly and cruelly began beating the boy to death. During the course of this “execution,” [Morales] knocked the boy down a hill, pulled the boy up again, and once again began systematically beating the life from his victim. The ultimate example of the savagery and sadistic nature of appellant’s conduct is revealed in one incident where the appellant was holding his victim in a headlock, grabbed the victim by the hair and physically tore a large section of hair and scalp from the victim’s skull-the boy was, in effect, scalped.
State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 513 N.E.2d 267, 276 (1987). The jury was confronted with the fact that Morales was 220 pounds and an expert in the martial arts; the victim was 92 pounds and twelve years old. Further, they heard that Morales had been considering murder as revenge for weeks before he executed it. Although his alcoholism was purported to be a mitigating factor, he was not so drunk on the night of the murder that he was unable to lead the young boy to a secret location one and a half miles away before the beating began. After he finished beating Mario, Morales was careful to wash the victim’s blood from his knuckles, ice his hands, and wash his shoes and jacket. And on top of all this, Morales confessed to the murder — both orally and in writing.
Given these facts, I agree with the Supreme Court of Ohio’s observation that “[t]he nature and circumstances of this offense are so horrendous that it would be difficult to imagine factors that might be mitigating.” Morales, 513 N.E.2d at 277. Despite defense counsel’s valiant effort to cast Morales in a tragic light, nothing in his upbringing explains the savage and sadistic nature of the murder here. As discussed, the majority fails to point to any evidence that differs in strength and subject matter to that which the jury heard and weighed against the aggravating factors in this case. For these reasons, I believe the majority erred in substituting its judgment for that of the jury’s.

. The majority does not explain with any degree of particularity how the absence of each individual’s testimony amounts to prejudice. In its discussion of deficient performance, the majority does discuss how specific witnesses would have testified if called at the penalty phase. These witnesses are: Ella Morales, Morales’s mother; Virginia Johnson, Morales’s aunt; Ron Morales, Morales’s uncle; Mike Morales, Morales’s cousin; Richard Morales, Morales’s father; and Joseph Samson, the former principle of Morales's high school.

. Counsel's performance is not constitutionally deficient simply because the bulk of mitigating evidence was presented during the guilt phase. In Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 699-700, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002), the Supreme Court held that trial counsel's failure to present witnesses during the penalty phase, which began one day after the petitioner was convicted, was not constitutionally ineffective where counsel had presented several witnesses during the guilt phase who testified regarding mitigating circumstances in support of the capital defendant’s plea of not guilly by reason of insanity. The Court emphasized that "[b]ecause the defense's theory at the guilt phase was not guilty by reason of insanity, counsel was able to put before the jury extensive testimony about what he believed to be the most compelling mitigating evidence in the case,” and that "counsel reasonably could have concluded that the substance of their testimony was still fresh to the jury.” Id. at 699, 122 S.Ct. 1843. Thus, the question of prejudice here is whether the evidence presented during the guilt phase and the penalty phase, collectively presented the sentencing jury with a sufficient picture of Morales's mitigating circumstances.

. In fact, it would, have been a valid trial strategy — not deficient performance — for Morales’s trial counsel to decline to present Morales’s post-conviction evidence had he known of its existence. See Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 792, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) (holding that counsel's decision not to present character witnesses during the penalty phase was not deficient performance because prior convictions might have been introduced on cross-examination); Tinsley, 399 F.3d at 808 (“At first blush, one might fairly question a penalty-phase strategy of [failing to introduce any mitigating evidence]. But, in this instance, there was more method of [counsel’s] strategy than initially meets the eye. [The petitioner’s counsel] (to say nothing of [the petition]) was not in an enviable position after the jury returned its finding of guilt. The murder was a brutal one.”); id. at 809 ("Had [the petitioner's counsel] tried to introduce evidence of [the petitioner’s] good character, his proclivity toward non-violence and his model prisoner conduct, the evidence likely would have opened the door to cross-examination on the conviction.”); Shears v. Caruso, No. 2:06-11069, 2007 WL 1582151, at *3 (E.D.Mich. May 31, 2007) (“Counsel’s decision to forego presenting character testimony, so as to avoid opening the door to potentially damaging information about petitioner, is a valid trial strategy that defeats petitioner's claim.”).