Wiley v. Puckett ( 1992 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 90-1599
_____________________
WILLIAM L. WILEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STEVE W. PUCKETT, Superintendent,
Mississippi State Penitentiary, and
MIKE MOORE, Attorney General,
Respondent-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
_________________________________________________________________
(July 20, 1992)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.
KING, Circuit Judge:
William L. Wiley, a Mississippi prisoner under a sentence of
death, appeals from the district court's denial of his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. He raises six distinct issues for
our review, including a claim that his sentence should be
invalidated because it was based in part on the aggravating
circumstance that the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious
or cruel." After hearing oral argument,1 we reserved decision
until the Supreme Court determined whether Clemons v.
1
Chief Judge Clark participated in the hearing of this
appeal, but resigned from the court on January 15, 1992. Judge
Carolyn Dineen King was substituted on the panel.
Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (1990), the case upon which the
aggravating circumstance claim was founded, could be applied
retroactively to persons such as Wiley whose death sentences
became final before that decision was issued. The Court has now
decided in Stringer v. Black, --- U.S. ---, 112 S. Ct. 1130
(1992), that Clemons did not announce a new rule for purposes of
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and so may be applied
retroactively. After receiving supplemental briefing on the
effect of Stringer, we are prepared to rule on all of Wiley's
claims.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 22, 1981, after J.B. Turner and his daughter
closed the convenience store Turner operated in DeSoto County,
Mississippi, Wiley emerged from a hiding place and fired three
shots from a shotgun. Turner's daughter, Patricia Harvey, was
injured, and Turner died on the scene. Wiley took a small money
box containing $350 to $400 and fled, leaving the shotgun.
Federal agents connected the shotgun to Wiley, and Wiley was
eventually arrested in Memphis, Tennessee. Wiley confessed to
the robbery and murder and was tried for capital murder.
Wiley was convicted of capital murder, which in Mississippi
includes a murder committed in the course of a robbery, and
sentenced to death. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court
affirmed the conviction, but reversed the death sentence because
of improper comments by the prosecutor. Wiley v. State, 449 So.
2
2d 756 (Miss. 1984). The second sentencing hearing resulted in a
second death sentence. This time the Mississippi Supreme Court
affirmed. Wiley v. State, 484 So. 2d 339 (Miss.), cert. denied,
479 U.S. 906 (1986) (Wiley II). Wiley then sought post-
conviction relief under the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction
Collateral Relief Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-1 et seq. (Supp.
1991). The Mississippi Supreme Court again denied relief. Wiley
v. State, 517 So. 2d 1373 (Miss. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S.
1036 (1988) (Wiley III). The court refused to hear eight of
Wiley's claims because they had already been litigated on direct
appeal and were thus res judicata under state law. Id. at 1377.
The court refused to hear an additional eight claims on the
ground that they had not been raised at trial or on direct appeal
and were therefore procedurally barred. Id. at 1378. On the
only claims open for review, the court held that Wiley had not
been deprived of effective assistance of counsel at the trial or
sentencing. Id. at 1382-83.
Wiley then initiated habeas proceedings in federal district
court. The court held seven claims procedurally barred. It
reviewed the remaining claims on the merits, but found that none
warranted relief. In addition, it refused to grant an
evidentiary hearing on Wiley's claim that he was denied effective
assistance of counsel.2 We granted a certificate of probable
cause to appeal.
2
We will describe more fully the district court's holdings
in our discussion of those claims presented on appeal.
3
Wiley asks us to review the following issues, all of which
relate to the second sentencing hearing:
1. Whether the death sentence is invalid under the Eighth
Amendment because (a) the jury was instructed to consider
whether the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious or
cruel" and (b) the jury found two aggravating circumstances
(murder for robbery and murder for pecuniary gain) arising
out of the same conduct.
2. Whether the district court erred in holding that Wiley
was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that
he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the
sentencing phase.
3. Whether the prosecution's exclusion of all but one black
juror from the sentencing jury violated Batson v. Kentucky,
476 U.S. 79 (1986).
4. Whether the prosecutor improperly referred to the
character of the victim.
5. Whether several statements made by the prosecutor
deprived Wiley of a fair trial.
6. Whether the introduction of photographs of the victim was
unduly prejudicial.
II. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES CLAIMS
Under Mississippi law, the jury may impose a death sentence
on a person convicted of capital murder if it finds one or more
statutorily defined aggravating circumstances, and then
determines that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances
outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-
101 (Supp. 1991). Mississippi is, therefore, what has been
termed a "weighing" state. Stringer, 112 S. Ct. at 1136. At
Wiley's sentencing, the trial judge instructed the jury, over
Wiley's objection, that it could consider four aggravating
circumstances. These were (1) whether the capital offense was
4
committed during the commission of an attempt to commit the crime
of robbery; (2) whether the capital offense was committed for
pecuniary gain; (3) whether the capital offense was especially
heinous, atrocious or cruel; and (4) whether the defendant was
previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of
violence to the person. Wiley II, 484 So. 2d at 350. In a
written verdict, the jury stated that it found the first three
aggravating circumstances. The jury further stated that the
mitigating evidence did not outweigh the aggravating
circumstances, and accordingly sentenced Wiley to death. Wiley
II, 484 So. 2d at 342. Wiley objects that his death sentence is
invalid under the Eighth Amendment for two reasons: the
"especially heinous" aggravating circumstances was too vague and
imprecise to channel the sentencer's discretion, and the robbery
and pecuniary gain circumstances were duplicative.
A. "Especially Heinous" Aggravating Circumstance
Nearly two years after Wiley's death sentence became final,
the Supreme Court invalidated a death sentence in which the jury
had considered the "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel"
aggravating circumstance without being given a limiting
instruction. Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988). The
Court found, first, that the language of the aggravating
circumstance was so vague and imprecise as to risk imposition of
the death penalty in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Id. at
364. Second, the Court found that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals had failed to apply a limiting construction to the vague
5
aggravating circumstance when reviewing the defendant's death
sentence. The Oklahoma court's mere conclusion that the evidence
supported the jury's finding of the aggravating circumstance was,
in the view of the Supreme Court, insufficient to "cure the
constitutional infirmity of the aggravating circumstance." Id.
Maynard was based in large part on Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S.
420 (1980), in which the Court had identified similar flaws in
Georgia's use of the aggravating circumstance that the murder
"was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that
it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery
to the victim." Id. at 422. As in Maynard, the jury in Godfrey
had been instructed only in the bare words of the statute and the
state supreme court failed to apply a limiting construction to
the aggravating circumstance when reviewing the death sentence.
See Godfrey, 446 U.S. at 428-29.
Shortly after Maynard was decided, the Court was confronted
with the question whether, in a weighing state, infection of the
capital sentencing determination with a vague aggravating factor
required invalidation of the death sentence. In Clemons v.
Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (1990), the Court answered this
question in the negative but required that an appellate court
reviewing the sentence focus carefully on the role the invalid
factor played in the process. As in Maynard and the instant
case, the Clemons jury had not received a limiting instruction
further defining the concept of an "especially heinous, atrocious
or cruel" killing. Implicit in the opinion was the assumption
6
that this amounted to constitutional error. See Stringer, 112 S.
Ct. at 1139; Clemons, 494 U.S. at 756 n.1 (Blackmun, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part). The questions in
Clemons were whether the Sixth and Eighth Amendments barred the
state appellate court from upholding the death sentence despite
the jury's use of a vague aggravating factor and whether, if an
appellate court could do so, the Mississippi Supreme Court had
conducted the proper analysis of Clemons's sentence.
The Court first concluded in Clemons that nothing in the
Sixth or Eighth Amendments prevents an appellate court that has
invalidated an aggravating factor from reweighing the remaining
valid aggravating factors and the mitigating evidence. With
respect to the argument that this would infringe on a defendant's
jury trial right, the Court pointed out that it had never
required "that a jury impose the sentence of death or make the
findings prerequisite to imposition of such a sentence." Id. at
745.3 In response to the argument that this would violate the
Eighth Amendment, the Court pointed out the numerous ways in
which appellate courts become involved in reviewing death
3
This conclusion rested in large part on Cabana v.
Bullock, 474 U.S. 376 (1986), in which the Court had held that an
appellate court can make the findings of intent to kill required
under Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), for the imposition
of a death sentence. The Court also rejected the subsidiary
argument that, because Mississippi law permits only a jury to
impose a death sentence, allowing the appellate court to do so
would transgress a liberty interest in having a jury make all
determinations relevant to the sentence. Clemons, 494 U.S. at
746-47.
7
sentences4 and concluded that appellate courts were capable of
giving defendants the "individualized and reliable sentencing
determination" demanded by the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 748-49.
Having determined that an appellate court could salvage a
death sentence by reweighing aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, the Court turned its attention to whether the
Mississippi Supreme Court actually had done so. At this point,
the Court recognized two methods by which the state court could
have reweighed, but was not certain which course the state court
had taken. The state court might have been reweighing by (1)
including in the balance the "especially heinous" factor as
limited by prior decisions of the Mississippi Supreme Court or
(2) eliminating the "especially heinous" factor altogether and
reweighing the remaining valid aggravating circumstance against
the mitigating evidence. Id. at 751. As for the latter, the
Court observed that the Mississippi Supreme Court may not have
reweighed at all, but simply applied a rule of "automatic
affirmance" when at least one valid aggravating factor remains.
Such a rule was not, in the Court's view, a proper method of
reweighing, as it would not involve an actual reconsideration of
the mix of aggravating and mitigating circumstances necessary to
satisfy the Eighth Amendment's requirement of individualized
sentencing. Id. at 752. With respect to the former, the Court
did not elaborate, but it seems to have been referring to its
4
Making Enmund findings is a prime example of appellate
courts' involvement in the review of capital sentences.
8
approval of appellate courts' application of a proper limiting
construction to an aggravating circumstance that has been vaguely
defined by statute. See Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 255-
56 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell & Stevens, JJ.) (approving
Florida death penalty statute in part because state supreme court
adopted limiting construction of "especially heinous" factor).
The Court in Clemons also approved of an alternative route
to affirmance -- harmless error analysis. Again, however, it was
not clear whether the Mississippi Supreme Court had done so in
its opinion affirming Clemons's death sentence. The Court
indicated its approval of two methods of harmless error analysis:
the state court could ask whether beyond a reasonable doubt the
sentence would have been the same had the vague aggravating
circumstance not been injected into the mix, or the court could
ask whether beyond a reasonable doubt the sentence would have
been the same had the circumstance been properly defined in the
jury instructions. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 753-54; see also Sochor
v. Florida, --- U.S. ---, 112 S. Ct. 2114, 2123 (1992). In
remanding, the Court emphasized that state appellate courts are
not required to reweigh or employ harmless error analysis, but
that these are constitutionally permissible methods of salvaging
a death sentence based upon an invalid or improperly defined
aggravating circumstance. Clemons, 494 U.S. at 754.
Maynard and Clemons clearly dictate the conclusion that
there was constitutional error in instructing the jury in the
bare words of the statute. Thus, our first task is to determine
9
whether the Mississippi Supreme Court articulated any
constitutionally permissible basis for upholding the death
sentence.5 We agree with Wiley that the Mississippi Supreme
Court neither eliminated the "especially heinous" factor from the
mix and reweighed the remaining aggravating circumstances against
the mitigating evidence, nor engaged in any of the forms of
harmless error analysis sanctioned in Clemons. Rather, the
court, after reciting the limiting construction it had previously
adopted for the "especially heinous" factor, merely held that the
evidence supported the factor as narrowed. Wiley II, 484 So. 2d
at 353-54. That it did not reweigh or perform harmless error
analysis is not surprising. Its decision was rendered in 1986,
two years before Maynard, and at that time the Mississippi
Supreme Court did not find any constitutional infirmity in
submitting the "especially heinous" factor to the jury without a
limiting instruction. Thus, the court had no need to eliminate
an improperly defined factor and reweigh or perform harmless
error analysis. Compare Clemons v. State, 535 So. 2d 1354 (Miss.
1988) (post-Maynard decision in which court recognized difficulty
with "especially heinous" factor), vacated and remanded, 494 U.S.
738 (1990). Wiley thus argues that, as in Clemons, the case must
go back to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
5
To the extent the district court held that the death
sentence could automatically be affirmed so long as valid
aggravating factors remained, this conclusion was erroneous in
light of Clemons.
10
We cannot agree with the State's contention that the
Mississippi Supreme Court cured the sentencing error when it
applied its narrowing construction to the "especially heinous"
circumstance and found that the evidence supported the finding of
the circumstance as narrowed. Without a doubt, the Supreme Court
has consistently held that the use of a vague aggravating
circumstance poses no Eighth Amendment problem so long as the
state appellate courts apply a proper narrowing construction.
See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 201 (1976) (joint opinion)
(Georgia's "outrageously vile" circumstance not vague so long as
state supreme court applies limiting construction); Proffitt, 428
U.S. at 255 (Florida's "especially heinous" circumstance upheld
because state supreme court had already adopted limiting
construction); Walton v. Arizona, --- U.S. ---, 110 S. Ct. 3047,
3058 (1990) (death sentence upheld where state supreme court
applied proper narrowing construction to "especially heinous,
cruel or depraved" factor); Lewis v. Jeffers, --- U.S. ---, 110
S. Ct. 3092, 3100 (1990) (same). Cf. Godfrey, 446 U.S. at 432-33
(striking down death sentence where "outrageously vile"
circumstance was used because Georgia Supreme Court failed to
apply limiting construction); Maynard, 486 U.S. at 363-64
(Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' failure to apply a limiting
construction to Oklahoma's "especially heinous" factor rendered
death sentence infirm). But after Clemons and Stringer, it is
clear that an appellate court must do more than simply find that
the aggravating circumstance as limited is supported by the
11
evidence. Rather, once it makes this finding, the appellate
court must either perform the weighing function by incorporating
in the mix the aggravating circumstance as limited, or it must
perform harmless error analysis by asking whether, beyond a
reasonable doubt, the death sentence would have been imposed had
the aggravating circumstance been properly defined in the jury
instructions.6 Here, all the Mississippi Supreme Court did was
set forth its limiting construction of the "especially heinous"
factor and then conclude that there was enough evidence in the
record to support the factor as limited. It did not perform
anything resembling the kind of reweighing or harmless error
analysis described above.
Clemons and Stringer together dictate this result. Clemons
indicates that it would have viewed the state supreme court as
having reweighed if that court had "reweigh[ed] the mitigating
circumstances and both aggravating factors by applying the proper
definition to the 'especially heinous' factor." Clemons, 494
U.S. at 751. Later, in describing its conception of reweighing,
the Court pointed out that Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978),
and Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), require the
sentencer to consider all mitigating evidence in imposing a death
6
Of course, the appellate court may reweigh by eliminating
the aggravating factor altogether, and it also may perform
harmless error analysis by asking whether, beyond a reasonable
doubt, the death sentence would have been imposed had the vague
aggravating factor never been submitted to the jury. The options
discussed in the text describe the courses an appellate court may
follow if it decides to incorporate the aggravating factor as
limited.
12
sentence; a failure to reevaluate "the mix of mitigating factors
and aggravating circumstances," Clemons, 494 U.S. at 752, means
that the appellate court's review does not qualify as reweighing.
Moreover, in speaking of harmless error analysis, the Court in
Clemons is clear that an appellate court does not simply apply
the limiting construction, but must inquire into "whether beyond
a reasonable doubt the result would have been the same had the
especially heinous aggravating circumstance been properly defined
in the jury instructions." Id. at 754 (emphasis added). This
imposes a burden which obviously is more exacting than the burden
of finding that the evidence supports the narrowed aggravating
factor.
Stringer makes these points even more clearly by emphasizing
the infirmity of a vague aggravating circumstance in a weighing
state. Stringer initially points out the critical importance in
a weighing state of "defin[ing] [aggravating circumstances] with
some degree of precision." Stringer, 112 S. Ct. at 1136. This
is due to the fact that aggravating factors in a weighing state
do not simply narrow the class of persons eligible for the death
penalty, as in Georgia, but rather lie at the very heart of the
sentencer's ultimate decision to impose a death sentence.
Consequently,
[a]lthough we ... held in Clemons v. Mississippi that [when
the sentencing process is infected with an invalid
aggravating factor] a state appellate court could reweigh
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances or undertake
harmless-error analysis, we have not suggested that the
Eighth Amendment permits the state appellate court in a
weighing State to affirm a death sentence without a thorough
13
analysis of the role an invalid aggravating factor played in
the sentencing process.
Id. The Court emphasized this point one paragraph later:
In order for a state appellate court to affirm a death
sentence after the sentencer was instructed to consider an
invalid factor, the court must determine what the sentencer
would have done absent the factor. Otherwise, the defendant
is deprived of the precision that individualized
consideration demands under the Godfrey and Maynard line of
cases.
Id. at 1136-37. The key to the requirement of such close
appellate scrutiny lies in the nature of weighing. In a system
such as Georgia's, the jury uses aggravating circumstances to
determine whether the defendant is eligible for death; if it
finds at least one, it then considers all the evidence adduced at
the guilt-innocence and sentencing phases in determining whether
death is the appropriate penalty. Id. at 1136; Zant v. Stephens,
462 U.S. 862, 872 (1983). Thus, the jury's use of an invalid
aggravating circumstance in determining death-eligibility does
not infect the ultimate decision to impose a death sentence and
the sentence may be upheld so long as the appellate court
determines that the invalid factor made no difference. See
Stringer, 112 S. Ct. at 1137. In a weighing state, in contrast,
the process of determining that death is the appropriate penalty
-- that is, the weighing process -- is skewed when the sentencing
body is told that it may include an invalid factor in its
decision. "A vague aggravating factor used in the weighing
process is in a sense worse [than in the Georgia system], for it
creates the risk that the jury will treat the defendant as more
deserving of the death penalty than he might otherwise be by
14
relying upon the existence of an illusory circumstance." Id. at
1139. Thus, a court reviewing a death sentence in which the
weighing process has been skewed may not simply apply a limiting
construction to the factor that has skewed the weighing, but must
also reconsider the entire mix of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances presented to the jury.7
In addition, we cannot agree with the State that the
Mississippi Supreme Court actually performed a harmless error
analysis. The words "harmless error" are not used in connection
with the invalid aggravating factor, and there is no indication
that the court gave the kind of "close appellate scrutiny of the
7
Our conclusion that a state appellate court may not
simply apply a limiting construction to a vague aggravating
circumstance is not inconsistent with Walton v. Arizona, --- U.S.
---, 110 S. Ct. 3047 (1990), or Lewis v. Jeffers, --- U.S. ---,
110 S. Ct. 3092 (1990). Both cases involved the Arizona capital
sentencing scheme, which, as described by the Supreme Court,
appears to be a weighing system. And, in both cases, the Court
upheld death sentences in which the sentencer (a trial judge)
used Arizona's "especially heinous, cruel or depraved"
aggravating circumstance. Even if the trial judge did not apply
the limiting construction (as he is presumed to do, Walton, 110
S. Ct. at 3057; Sochor v. Florida, --- U.S. ---, 112 S. Ct. 2114,
2121 (1992)), the sentences were not constitutionally infirm
because the Arizona Supreme Court applied an acceptable narrowing
construction on direct review. However, the Arizona Supreme
Court in both cases did not simply find that the evidence
supported the aggravating circumstances as limited; rather, it
also reconsidered the mitigating evidence and concluded that
there was insufficient mitigating evidence to call for leniency.
Walton, 110 S. Ct. at 3053; Jeffers, 110 S. Ct. at 3097. Thus,
the Arizona Supreme Court's review constitutes the kind of
reweighing required by Clemons and Stringer. In the case before
us, by contrast, the Mississippi Supreme Court never reconsidered
the mitigating evidence against the "especially heinous"
circumstance as narrowly construed. This runs afoul of the need
to "give defendants the individualized treatment that would
result from actual reweighing of the mix of mitigating factors
and aggravating circumstances." Clemons, 494 U.S. at 752
(citation omitted).
15
import and effect of invalid aggravating factors," Stringer, 112
S. Ct. at 1136, that must accompany the modes of harmless error
analysis described in Clemons. See Sochor, 112 S. Ct. at 2123 (a
plain statement that a death sentence which incorporates an
invalid aggravating factor survives harmless error enquiry is
preferable to simply citing cases); id. (O'Connor, J.,
concurring) (Clemons requires more than a bald statement that
error was harmless).8
Because only the Mississippi courts can determine the proper
approach to Wiley's sentencing, we must vacate the judgment of
the district court insofar as it holds that the basing of Wiley's
sentence on the "especially heinous" aggravating circumstance did
not offend the Eighth Amendment. The district court is,
therefore, directed to issue the writ of habeas corpus unless the
State of Mississippi initiates appropriate proceedings in state
court within a reasonable time after the issuance of our mandate.
Because a new sentencing hearing before a jury is not
constitutionally required, the State of Mississippi may initiate
whatever state court proceedings it finds appropriate, including
seeking a life sentence. Cf. Bullock v. Cabana, 784 F.2d 187,
187 (5th Cir. 1986) (on remand from Supreme Court) (leaving State
8
In a final attempt to avoid further proceedings in state
court, the State asserts that this court can perform harmless
error analysis itself. Clemons and Stringer are quite clear,
however, that any such analysis must be performed by the state
courts. See Clemons, 494 U.S. at 752; Stringer, 112 S. Ct. at
1136; see also Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (state
appellate courts could apply harmless error analysis when
reviewing death sentence imposed by judge who relied in part on
invalid aggravating factor).
16
with choice of obtaining a determination from its own courts of
factual question which could be decided by either jury or
appellate court); Reddix v. Thigpen, 805 F.2d 506, 517 (5th Cir.
1986) (same).9
Wiley argues that placing this case back in the Mississippi
courts will necessarily result in a new sentencing hearing, thus
mooting the other claims he raises in this appeal. He contends
that the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision in the Clemons
remand, Clemons v. State, 593 So. 2d 1004 (Miss. 1992),
establishes that that court will not perform either the
reweighing or harmless error analysis sanctioned by the U.S.
Supreme Court, but instead will automatically remand to the state
trial court for resentencing. Our analysis of the opinion in the
Clemons remand, however, indicates that a new sentencing hearing
is not absolutely required under state law. Therefore, because
Wiley may again receive a death sentence based on the 1984
sentencing trial, we will, in the interest of judicial economy,
consider Wiley's claims arising out of that proceeding.
9
We note that, although the district court in this habeas
proceeding cannot remand directly to the Mississippi Supreme
Court as did the U.S. Supreme Court in the direct appeal in
Clemons, Mississippi procedures permit the State to place a case
directly before the Mississippi Supreme Court when a federal
district court has granted a writ of habeas corpus and left to
the State the task of initiating appropriate proceedings. In
Reddix and Bullock, two habeas cases in which the federal court
vacated the petitioners' death sentences in order to enable the
state courts to make factual findings necessary for imposition of
the death penalty, but in which the relevant findings could be
made at either the trial or appellate level, the State made a
motion to reinstate the death sentence directly in the Supreme
Court of Mississippi. Reddix v. State, 547 So. 2d 792, 794
(Miss. 1989); Bullock v. State, 525 So. 2d 764, 765 (Miss. 1987).
17
Wiley is correct only about the Mississippi Supreme Court's
view on the propriety under state law of reweighing. In its
recent decision in Clemons v. State, the Mississippi Supreme
Court held that state law precludes it from reweighing
aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the death
penalty is warranted. Analyzing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101,
which provides that the jury imposes the death penalty, and Miss.
Code Ann. § 99-19-105, which sets forth criteria for review of
death sentences by the Mississippi Supreme Court, the court held:
From these statutory provisions, two things are clear: only
the jury, by unanimous decision, can impose the death
penalty; as to aggravating circumstances, this Court only
has the authority to determine whether the evidence supports
the jury's or judge's finding of a statutory aggravating
circumstance. There is no authority for this Court to
reweigh remaining aggravating circumstances when it finds
one or more to be invalid or improperly defined, nor is
there authority for this Court to find evidence to support a
proper definition of an aggravating circumstance in order to
uphold a death sentence by reweighing. Finding aggravating
and mitigating circumstances, weighing them, and ultimately
imposing a death sentence are, by statute, left to a
properly instructed jury.
593 So. 2d at 1006; see also Shell v. State, 595 So. 2d 1323
(Miss. 1992) (vacated and remanded in light of Clemons; court
held state law precluded reweighing); Jones v. State, No. 03-DP-
601, 1992 WL 124774 (Miss. June 10, 1992) (same); Pinkney v.
State, No. 03-DP-761, 1992 WL 146776 (Miss. July 1, 1992) (same).
The court in the Clemons remand and the above cited cases
did not, however, find that state law precluded it from
performing harmless error analysis. In Clemons, the court
essentially concurred in the view of the U.S. Supreme Court that
use of the invalid aggravating factor was not likely to be
18
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in Clemons' sentencing, where
only two aggravating circumstances were argued to the jury and
the State's argument at sentencing was devoted almost entirely to
the "especially heinous" circumstance. Moreover, the Mississippi
Supreme Court found that the error was not harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt because it was not convinced that the jury would
have found the "especially heinous" factor had it been properly
defined in the jury instructions. Id. at 1007.10 Nothing in the
opinion, however, suggests that a harmless error analysis is not
permitted under state law. The Mississippi Supreme Court
actually asked whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt, but found that it was not. Thus, although it remanded to
the state trial court for resentencing in Clemons and three
subsequent cases, there is no guarantee that it would do so in
this case. Accordingly, returning this case to the Mississippi
courts will not necessarily moot Wiley's other federal claims.
We proceed now to consider those claims.
B. Robbery and Pecuniary Gain Aggravating Circumstances
Wiley levels a second challenge to the use of aggravating
circumstances. He contends that, in considering the "robbery"
and "pecuniary gain" circumstances, the jury "was encouraged to
double the aggravating weight of evidence already fully
considered in the context of another statutory aggravating
circumstance." He contends that the use of two aggravating
10
The Mississippi Supreme Court reached similar
conclusions in the Shell, Jones and Pinkney remands.
19
circumstances that described the same conduct11 failed to channel
and limit the jury's discretion to impose the death sentence, and
therefore resulted in an arbitrary death sentence in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.
A number of state courts have expressed disapproval of the
use of both the "robbery" and "pecuniary gain" aggravating
factors when both would apply to the same conduct, including (as
of 1991) Mississippi.12 These courts have not found this result
dictated by the Eighth Amendment, but instead have relied on
state law. If Wiley were relying purely on state law in raising
this claim, we would agree with the State that our consideration
of the claim is barred. See Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41
(1984). But Wiley has raised federal constitutional objections,
so our powers as a federal habeas court are properly invoked.
Having said that, there is an independent bar to our
consideration of this claim: Wiley asks us to create a "new
rule" within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),
11
Murder for pecuniary gain could refer to conduct
different than murder committed in the course of a robbery, as
the former may encompass murder-for-hire. In this case, there
were no instructions differentiating among the two, and under the
facts of the case both could only refer to the same conduct.
12
Cook v. State, 369 So. 2d 1251, 1256 (Ala. 1978); People
v. Bigelow, 37 Cal. 3d 731, 209 Cal. Rptr. 328, 691 P.2d 994,
1006 (1984); Provence v. State, 337 So. 2d 783, 786 (Fla. 1976),
cert. denied, 431 U.S. 969 (1977); Willie v. State, 585 So. 2d
660, 680-81 (Miss. 1991); State v. Rust, 197 Neb. 528, 250 N.W.2d
867, 873-74 cert. denied, 434 U.S. 912 (1977); State v.
Glidewell, 663 P.2d 738, 743 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
20
and apply it retroactively to him, and he does not come within
either of the exceptions to the Teague doctrine.13
Under Teague, new rules of constitutional criminal procedure
will not be announced on federal habeas review unless one of two
narrow exceptions applies. 489 U.S. at 311-13; Saffle v. Parks,
494 U.S. 484, 488 (1990); Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 313
(1989). In the now-familiar parlance, "'a case announces a new
rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the
States or the Federal Government.' Or, '[t]o put it differently,
a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by
precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became
final.'" Penry, 492 U.S. at 314 (citing Teague, 489 U.S. at 301)
(brackets in Penry; emphasis in Teague); see also Butler v.
McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 412 (1990); Stringer, 112 S. Ct. at 1135.
These principles primarily serve federalism concerns: they
validate state courts' reasonable, good faith reliance on
precedents existing at the time they rendered their decisions,
Butler, 494 U.S. at 414, and reduce the tendency of federal
habeas review to undermine the finality of state criminal
convictions. See Teague, 489 U.S. at 308-09.
Although Wiley spends very little time arguing this claim in
his brief14 and cites no cases in support of the rule he seeks,
13
The retroactivity issue was not raised by the State,
but, as did the Court in Teague, 489 U.S. at 300, we may consider
it sua sponte. Smith v. Black, 904 F.2d 950, 981 n.12 (5th Cir.
1990), vacated and remanded on other grounds, --- U.S. ---, 112
S. Ct. 1463 (1992).
14
It was not raised at oral argument.
21
we perceive his claim to be based on the well-established
principle that, when the proposed penalty is death, the
sentencer's discretion must be channelled and limited so to as to
avoid imposition of the penalty in a "wanton or freakish" manner.
Gregg, 428 U.S. at 188-89 (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S.
238, 310 (1972) (Stewart, J., concurring)); see also Stephens,
462 U.S. at 874; Walton, 110 S. Ct. at 3061 (Scalia, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (listing the
many ways the Court has described this basic principle). Saying
that his claim is "based on" this principle, however, is not the
same as saying his claim is dictated by precedent. A death-
sentenced petitioner could raise any number of objections to the
use of aggravating circumstances and contend that all flow from
the basic Eighth Amendment narrowing requirement. Were a habeas
petitioner able to spark creation of a new rule simply by
invoking Gregg and its progeny, the practical limits the Court
has placed on retroactive application of new rules would be all
but eviscerated in the Eighth Amendment capital sentencing
context.
In order for Wiley's sought-after rule not to be considered
new, we think it must be dictated by precedent more specific than
Gregg and the cases repeating its essential principle. In the
only Supreme Court case holding that a rule which ultimately
derived from the Gregg principle was not a new rule, the Court
did not base its decision on Gregg or the generalized requirement
that state capital sentencing statutes narrow the class of
22
persons eligible for the death penalty, but instead on a more
particularized application of the Gregg principle. The case to
which we refer, of course, is Stringer, and it found the
invalidation in Maynard v. Cartwright and Clemons v. Mississippi
of the "especially heinous" aggravating circumstance dictated by
Godfrey v. Georgia. Godfrey was a specific application of the
narrowing requirement in which the Court held that the Georgia
system's threshold criterion for imposing a death sentence must
be defined with precision either in the jury instructions or by
the state appellate court reviewing the sentence. Thus, Stringer
does not suggest to us that the relevant precedent is the broad-
based Gregg principle, but rather some precedent that would speak
to the constitutionality of giving the jury in a weighing state
multiple, identical aggravating circumstances. Cf. Penry, 492
U.S. at 315-19 (requested rule that Texas juries be given special
instruction on ability to consider mitigating evidence is not
new, because the Texas capital sentencing scheme had been upheld
in 1976 on the specific understanding that the statute would not
preclude presentation of mitigating evidence); Saffle, 494 U.S.
at 491-92 (Penry was an application of the specific precedent of
Jurek).
We can find no precedent that will assist Wiley. The
Court's only specific extension of the Gregg principle has come
in the Godfrey-Maynard-Clemons line of decisions, a group of
cases which speak to the importance of precision in defining
aggravating circumstances in both weighing and non-weighing
23
states and to the consequences for appellate review of
imprecisely defined circumstances. Godfrey, Maynard and Clemons
(all of which are available to Wiley) provide no basis for the
sought-after rule here, for Wiley is not claiming that the
robbery and pecuniary gain aggravating circumstances were
invalid, improperly defined, or imprecise. Rather, he simply
raises a broad-based claim that "stacking" of identical, valid
aggravating circumstances will impermissibly influence the jury
in a weighing state toward returning a death sentence. Were we
to grant Wiley the relief he seeks we would necessarily "break
new ground," so the rule must be classified as new. Cf. Saffle,
494 U.S. at 490 (rule which would preclude sentencing jury from
being told to avoid any influence of sympathy relates to how
sentencer must consider mitigating evidence, not what evidence it
may consider, and so is not dictated by the Lockett-Eddings
principle).
Neither of the two exceptions to the new rule doctrine helps
Wiley. The first exception applies when a new rule "places
'certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the
power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe'[.]"
Teague, 489 U.S. at 311 (quoting Mackey v. United States, 401
U.S. 667, 692 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part
and dissenting in part)). It requires no extended discussion to
show why the rule Wiley seeks would not put any individual
conduct beyond the authority of government to proscribe. The
second exception applies to procedural rules which are critical
24
to an accurate determination of guilt or innocence. Id. at 312.
This exception, too, is obviously inapplicable. Accordingly,
because Wiley asks us to apply a new rule to him on habeas, we
cannot reach the merits of the claim.
III. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Wiley argued in the district court that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and
sentencing phases, but on appeal he confines his claim to the
sentencing phase. He asserts that an evidentiary hearing is
necessary to resolve disputed facts concerning his
representation. A federal habeas court must hold an evidentiary
hearing if there are disputed facts and the petitioner did not
receive a full and fair hearing in a state court, either at trial
or in a collateral proceeding. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293,
312 (1963), overruled in part on other grounds, Keeney v. Tamayo-
Reyes, --- U.S. ---, 112 S. Ct. 1715 (1992). This standard
applies equally to ineffective assistance of counsel claims. If
the record is adequate to dispose of the claim, the federal court
need not hold an evidentiary hearing. Byrne v. Butler, 845 F.2d
501, 512 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1242 (1988); see also
Paster v. Lynaugh, 876 F.2d 1184, 1190 (5th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, --- U.S. ---, 110 S. Ct. 272 (1990); Baldwin v. Maggio,
704 F.2d 1325, 1329 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1220
(1984).
25
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at
capital sentencing trials under the two-part test of Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). First, a defendant must show
that "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness," with reasonableness judged under professional
norms prevailing at the time counsel rendered assistance. Id. at
688. We are "highly deferential" to counsel's decisions about
how to conduct the defense, as it is extremely difficult for
reviewing courts to place themselves in counsel's position and
evaluate the choices he or she should have made. The range of
attorney conduct that must be considered reasonable is thus quite
wide, and our inquiry must focus on the particular decisions an
attorney made in light of all the circumstances. Id. at 689-90.
This standard applies no less to an attorney's duty to
investigate than to the other duties associated with trial:
"strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and
facts relevant to plausible options are virtually
unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than
complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent
that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on
investigation." Id. at 690-91. Second, "[t]he defendant must
show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."
Id. at 694. A court evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance
26
need not address the reasonableness component first, and, if a
defendant fails on one part, the court need not address the
other. Id. at 697.
The essence of Wiley's claim is that his appointed counsel
at the guilt-innocence trial and both sentencing trials, James D.
Franks, conducted a woefully inadequate investigation of
mitigating evidence. At the second sentencing trial, Franks
called no witnesses in Wiley's behalf, choosing instead to
present mitigating evidence entirely through the cross-
examination testimony of the State's witnesses. Franks elicited
testimony from Terry Galt, a co-worker of Wiley at the time of
the crime, that Wiley was not a troublemaker and did not display
violent tendencies. Turner's wife and daughter, both of whom
knew Wiley from Wiley's visits to the convenience store, also
testified that they had not seen Wiley act violently. In cross-
examining Mike Allen, a State forensic scientist and the State's
firearms expert, Franks attempted to cast doubt on the State's
theory that Wiley was moving toward Turner when he fired the
shotgun, thereby indicating a lack of intent to kill. James
Riley, chief deputy sheriff of DeSoto County, testified that
Wiley accepted blame for the crime, was a model prisoner, and
cooperated in the law enforcement investigation. According to an
affidavit Franks filed in connection with Wiley's habeas
petition, Franks questioned Wiley about witnesses that might
appear on his behalf, but Wiley "did not give me any names."
27
Wiley asserts that Franks unreasonably failed to investigate
his background, character and mental condition, and that he
failed to locate witnesses who could have bolstered the evidence
that Wiley had no history of violence or criminal behavior. He
contends that Franks could have obtained a considerable amount of
evidence that would have related directly to the mitigating
circumstances enumerated in the Mississippi capital sentencing
statute, such as mental impairment and diminished capacity. See
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(b),(f) (Supp. 1991). In his
petition, he proffered affidavits in which friends and family in
the DeSoto County area stated that they would have testified on
Wiley's behalf had they been contacted; Army and school records;
and the affidavits of a psychologist (Dr. Billy Fox) and a
psychiatrist (Dr. Robert Ritter) who examined Wiley in 1987. Dr.
Fox stated that he diagnosed Wiley as suffering from borderline
mental retardation, alcoholism and drug dependency, and
passive/aggressive personality disorder. Dr. Ritter's diagnosis
was similar. Both stated that, had they been called to testify
at the sentencing trial, they would have been able to present a
psychological profile of Wiley which would help explain his crime
and make him appear more sympathetic to the jury.
On the basis of this record, Wiley is not entitled to a
federal evidentiary hearing. His own affidavit and Franks's
affidavit are not in conflict on the basic fact that Wiley did
not bring to Franks's attention any of the potentially mitigating
evidence now in the habeas record. Wiley's affidavit states:
28
"Mr. Franks did not fully explain to me that it was important for
people who knew me to testify at the sentencing hearing. Mr.
Franks only asked me a general question about whether there was
anyone who would help in my defense." Franks's affidavit states:
"I questioned Mr. Wiley about witnesses that might appear on his
behalf but he did not give me any names." At only one point does
Wiley acknowledge providing Franks with information that might be
mitigating: "I told Mr. Franks about my abuse of alcohol, speed
and pot before the alleged crime." There is absolutely no
suggestion in any of Wiley's submissions, however, that there was
any reason for Franks to suspect the existence of mental
impairment. There is no indication that Wiley had ever been
examined by mental health professionals prior to the sentencing
trial, that he had been diagnosed as suffering from any
particular disorder, or that his personality was such that a
reasonable person would have thought mental impairment a
promising line of defense.
Investigations into mitigating circumstances may reasonably
be limited where the defendant fails to call witnesses to his
lawyer's attention. See Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 794-95
(1987) (counsel's interview of only those witnesses called to his
attention was reasonable). Our cases, too, have recognized that
a defendant who does not provide any indication to his attorneys
of the availability of mitigating evidence may not later assert
an ineffective assistance claim. For example, in Byrne, the
habeas petitioner complained of his attorneys' failure to
29
discover evidence of an underlying mental disorder. Assuming for
the sake of argument that Byrne in fact suffered from a mental
disorder which could have mitigated the death sentence, we held
that "Byrne must still demonstrate . . . that his attorneys had
some indication that mental impairment might prove a promising
line of defense." 845 F.2d at 513 (citations omitted). But
Byrne, like Wiley, "[did] not allege that he intimated to his
attorneys that he was suffering from a mental disorder." Id.
Similarly, in James v. Butler, 827 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1987),
cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1046 (1988), we rejected an
ineffectiveness claim where the petitioner did not alert counsel
to the possibility of a defense based on mental impairment due to
drugs.
This is not a case like Loyd v. Smith, 899 F.2d 1416 (5th
Cir. 1990), where, despite the fact that the petitioner had been
subject to a sanity examination prior to trial, his lawyers
failed to investigate his mental impairments any further prior to
the sentencing hearing and failed to obtain an independent
psychiatric examination to fill in acknowledged "gaps in the
record." Id. at 1421. Also distinguishable is Wilson v. Butler,
813 F.2d 664 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1079 (1988).
There, we held that an evidentiary hearing on an ineffectiveness
claim was necessary where the petitioner alleged that his father
had alerted defense counsel to the petitioner's "problems" dating
from childhood. Id. at 669, 671. We found that this information
was sufficient to require competent counsel to further
30
investigate the petitioner's background. Id. at 671; see also
Profitt v. Waldron, 831 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir. 1987) (counsel
ineffective where he knew defendant had escaped from a mental
institution, but did not determine why defendant had been in the
institution).
Franks's decision to limit his investigation of potential
mitigating evidence to State's witnesses is reasonable to the
extent it was supported by a reasonable professional judgment
about how to conduct the defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-
91. Because nothing alerted Franks to the possibility of mental
impairment as a mitigating factor, we find the decision not to
obtain a psychiatric evaluation entirely reasonable. Wiley
asserts that he told Franks that he had been under the influence
of drugs and alcohol, but this meager information alone would not
require the full-scale investigation Wiley suggests was
necessary. Although we are of the view that counsel could have
made an effort to locate friends and family who could have
testified about Wiley's favorable qualities, "'[w]e address not
what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally
compelled.'" Burger, 483 U.S. at 794 (citing United States v.
Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 665 n.8 (1984)). Wiley and Franks agree
that Wiley did not provide Franks with any leads on witnesses.
Franks could reasonably have concluded that the most promising
line of defense at the sentencing trial was to force the State's
witnesses to tell the jury about Wiley's history of nonviolence,
cooperation in the investigation, good behavior as a prisoner,
31
and acceptance of blame for the crime. He could also reasonably
have concluded, as the state court noted, that introducing
evidence of any adverse psychological background would have
contradicted his attempt to portray Wiley as basically a
nonviolent person who had no intent to kill Turner. See Wiley
III, 517 So. 2d at 1380. In sum, we do not find that Franks's
decisions at Wiley's second sentencing trial were unreasonable,
and so we do not address the prejudice component of the inquiry.
IV. BATSON CLAIM AND IMPROPER PROSECUTORIAL COMMENTS
Wiley asserted in his petition that the prosecutor
improperly exercised his peremptory challenges to exclude all but
one black from the jury venire, in violation of Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). He also asserted that the
prosecutor violated his due process rights by introducing a
materially inaccurate transcript of Wiley's confession and twice
reading the erroneous language in rebuttal closing argument, and
by making improper remarks in the closing argument about the
brutality of the murder. Wiley did not object at trial to the
peremptory challenges or to the prosecutor's closing argument.
He did object to the transcript, but did not raise any issue with
respect to the transcript on direct appeal. On collateral
review, the Mississippi Supreme Court stated that Wiley's failure
to raise the three issues listed above at trial or on direct
appeal rendered the claims "procedurally barred and not subject
to further review by this Court, under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-29-
32
21. Wilcher v. State, 479 So. 2d 710 (Miss. 1985)." Wiley III,
517 So. 2d at 1378.
The district court found that the Mississippi Supreme Court,
the last state court to address Wiley's claims, had clearly and
expressly relied on a procedural bar erected by state law in
rejecting these claims. See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263
(1989). Accordingly, the district court held, Wiley could not
obtain federal review of these claims unless he showed "cause"
for defaulting them in state court and resulting prejudice. See
id. at 262-63; Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 485 (1986);
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87 (1977). Wiley attempted to
circumvent the procedural bar with respect to the Batson and
closing argument claims on the ground that his counsel's
ineffectiveness was cause for failing to object, and,
alternatively, attempted to avoid the procedural bar altogether
by arguing that the Mississippi courts did not consistently apply
the bar.15 The district court rejected both arguments. On
appeal, Wiley concedes the state court's reliance on a procedural
bar but reurges his two arguments for disregarding it.
A. Batson Claim
Because Wiley's conviction had not yet become final at the
time Batson was decided, he is not precluded from taking
advantage of the decision. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S.
15
Wiley did not argue that he had cause for failing to
raise the transcript claim on direct appeal. The only ground he
asserted for avoiding the procedural bar with respect to that
claim was Mississippi's inconsistent application of the bar.
33
314 (1987) (Batson applies retroactively to cases pending on
direct review in state courts). However, it is settled in this
circuit that a timely objection to the prosecutor's peremptory
challenges is essential to a Batson claim. Thomas v. Moore, 866
F.2d 803, 805 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 840 (1989);
Jones v. Butler, 864 F.2d 348, 369 (5th Cir.) (on petition for
rehearing), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1075 (1989); see also
Wilkerson v. Collins, 950 F.2d 1054, 1063 (5th Cir. 1992),
petition for cert. filed, No. 91-7669 (U.S. March 18, 1992).
This is so because of the difficulty inherent in a post hoc
attempt to determine the reasons behind a prosecutor's
challenges. Id. at 369-70. Under the reasoning of Thomas and
Jones, cause for failing to object and resulting prejudice cannot
rescue the claim. However, because the Mississippi Supreme Court
relied on a state procedural bar we think it appropriate
(although not required) to address Wiley's cause and prejudice
arguments in the alternative.
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel as Cause on the Batson
and Closing Argument Claims
The Supreme Court fleshed out the concept of "cause" for a
procedural default in Carrier, holding that cause "must
ordinarily turn on whether the prisoner can show that some
objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel's
efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule." 477 U.S. at
488. Without excluding other possible ways a petitioner could
make this showing, the Court noted that a lack of reasonable
availability of the factual or legal basis for a claim or the
34
existence of interference by state officials would satisfy the
standard. Id. Because the Sixth Amendment prevents states from
conducting trials at which defendants receive inadequate legal
assistance, the Court held, "[i]neffective assistance of counsel
. . . is cause for a procedural default." Id.; see also Coleman
v. Thompson, --- U.S. ---, 111 S. Ct. 2546, 2566 (1991)
(ineffective assistance may be cause when default occurs in
proceedings in which petitioner had constitutional right to
counsel).16
With respect to the Batson claim, Batson had not yet been
decided when Wiley's second sentencing trial took place. Wiley
suggests, however, that his counsel's failure to object was
unreasonable because the basis for a challenge to the
prosecutor's conduct was established in Swain v. Alabama, 380
U.S. 202 (1965). The Court's description in Batson of the fatal
flaw in the Swain decision undercuts this contention. In order
to make out a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under
Swain, a defendant was required to show that prosecutors
repeatedly exercised peremptory challenges to remove blacks who
had been selected as qualified jurors and who survived challenges
for cause. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 92. Since the lower courts'
16
The standards of Strickland apply fully in this context.
Carrier, 477 U.S. at 488. In addition, in order to use
ineffective assistance to establish cause, a petitioner must
first exhaust it as an independent constitutional claim in state
court. Id. at 489. Wiley has properly exhausted a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise a Batson
claim and for failing to object to the prosecutor's closing
argument. See Wiley III, 517 So. 2d at 1380-81.
35
interpretation of Swain "ha[d] placed on defendants a crippling
burden of proof, prosecutors' peremptory challenges [were]
largely immune from constitutional scrutiny." Batson, 476 U.S.
at 92-93 (footnote omitted); see Willis v. Zant, 720 F.2d 1212,
1220 (11th Cir. 1983) (winning Swain claims extremely difficult),
cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1256 (1984). Wiley's counsel, like
countless other defense attorneys laboring under the onerous
proof burdens required by Swain, undoubtedly decided that he was
unlikely to mount a successful constitutional challenge to the
prosecutor's peremptory challenges. We must view this strategic
decision as reasonable under the standards articulated in
Strickland. See Poole v. United States, 832 F.2d 561, 565 (11th
Cir. 1987) (attorney not ineffective for failing to raise Batson
claim before decision because case was a clear break with
precedent), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817 (1988); cf. Government of
Virgin Islands v. Forte, 865 F.2d 59, 62-63 (3d Cir. 1989)
(counsel's failure to raise Batson claim was ineffective only
because defendant asked him to object in light of fact that
Batson was pending). Consequently, ineffective assistance of
counsel does not function as cause for Wiley's failure to comply
with the state's contemporaneous objection rule.
We can more easily dispose of the argument that ineffective
assistance underlies the default of the closing argument claim.
The prosecutor referred to the brutality of the murder,
undoubtedly focusing the jury on the then-legal "especially
heinous, atrocious or cruel" aggravating circumstance. This sort
36
of approach in a closing argument is not by any means an obvious
constitutional violation, particularly in light of the evidence
adduced at the sentencing trial. See Mattheson v. King, 751 F.2d
1432, 1445-46 (5th Cir. 1985) (prosecutor's reference to victim's
head as having been blown off and into the ceiling did not render
trial unfair, in light of evidence at trial), cert. dism'd, 475
U.S. 1138 (1986). Indeed, the prosecutor's closing argument was
not nearly as graphic as that in Mattheson, consisting instead of
an expression of horror at the nature of the crime and an
exhortation to the jury to ensure that Wiley did not kill again.
Franks could reasonably have decided not to risk antagonizing the
jury by objecting, or he could have decided that his best
strategy was to let his own closing argument (recited before the
State's) speak for itself. Whatever the reason he chose not to
object, we do not view his conduct as ineffective assistance.
Thus, Wiley has not established cause for failing to object to
the closing argument.17
17
With respect to the Batson claim, Wiley also suggests
that we disregard the bar of the contemporaneous objection rule
altogether. Not only does the bar "serve no legitimate state
interest," Wiley says, requiring a contemporaneous objection
where settled law bars a challenge to a prosecutor's use of
peremptories would merely encourage needless delay. We disagree
for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court has made it quite
clear that in the habeas context, a state's application of a
procedural rule to bar review is an adequate and independent
ground supporting the state judgment. See Coleman, 111 S. Ct. at
2554; Harris, 489 U.S. at 262; Sykes, 433 U.S. at 81, 87. Given
the concerns of "comity and federalism" which support the
independent and adequate state ground doctrine in habeas,
Coleman, 111 S. Ct. at 2554, we are not at liberty to disregard a
particular state rule even if we disagree with its utility in a
particular case. Second, to the extent that Wiley is arguing
that he had cause for the procedural default because the factual
37
C. Inconsistency of Mississippi's Application of the
Procedural Bar
Wiley next relies on the principle that a state court's
invocation of a procedural bar will not preclude federal review
where the state courts do not regularly apply the rule cited as
the bar. See Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 587 (1988).
The district court, relying on Hill v. Black, 887 F.2d 513 (5th
Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds, --- U.S. ---, 111 S. Ct. 28
(1990), held that the Mississippi courts regularly apply the
contemporaneous objection rule as a procedural bar, and thus held
the state procedural bar effective.
In invoking a procedural bar to eliminate consideration of
the Batson, closing argument and transcript claims, the
Mississippi Supreme Court simply listed the claims and then cited
the rule barring claims not objected to at trial or raised on
direct appeal. It is important here, however, to distinguish
between the separate grounds of contemporaneous objection and
or legal basis for a Batson claim was not reasonably available at
the time of his sentencing hearing in June 1984, we cannot agree.
If this were the case, of course, it would constitute cause for
the procedural default. Reed v. Ross, 486 U.S. 1, 16 (1984);
Carrier, 477 U.S. at 488. But Swain's condemnation of race-based
peremptory challenges certainly raised the possibility that one
might prevail on the courts to find a constitutional violation
under a less onerous burden of proof than required by Swain
itself. "Swain should have warned prosecutors that using
peremptories to exclude blacks on the assumption that no black
juror could fairly judge a black defendant would violate the
Equal Protection Clause." Batson, 476 U.S. at 101 (White, J.,
concurring). Defense attorneys, too, were alerted to the
constitutional problem and could (but were not necessarily
required to) lodge an objection. Cf. McCray v. Abrams, 750 F.2d
1113, 1124-30 (2d Cir. 1984), reh'g en banc denied, 756 F.2d 277
(1985), vacated and remanded, 478 U.S. 1001 (1986).
38
failure to raise a claim on direct appeal, for Wiley did raise an
objection at trial to the prosecutor's use of the transcript.
Thus, we perceive the Mississippi Supreme Court to have rejected
the Batson and closing argument claims due to Wiley's failure to
object at trial, and to have rejected the transcript claim for
failing to raise it on direct appeal. As we discuss below, this
court has reached different conclusions about the consistency of
these two different procedural bars.
In Hill, we found that "the Supreme Court [of Mississippi]
regularly applies the contemporaneous objection rule to the cases
before it." 887 F.2d at 516. It is true, as Wiley points out,
that the Mississippi Supreme Court may disregard the procedural
bar rule when plain error exists. But we acknowledged this
practice in Hill and did not find that it detracted from the
consistency of Mississippi's application of the rule. Hill, 887
F.2d at 516.18 Johnson does not help Wiley overcome the
contemporaneous objection bar, because the inconsistency
identified in Johnson arose in only one limited context: the
failure of a defendant to challenge on direct appeal a conviction
that forms the basis for an enhanced sentence or supports an
18
Although we went on to discuss the substantive merits of
the claims the Mississippi Supreme Court had held procedurally
barred in Hill, we did so in order to illustrate that the
district court had erred in granting the writ on the ground that
Mississippi applied the rule inconsistently. We pointed out that
"neither [claim] would have justified the Mississippi Supreme
Court in applying the exception to the Mississippi
contemporaneous objection rule to either allegation of error.
Accordingly, the district court erred in granting habeas corpus
relief based on the Mississippi Supreme Court's application of
the Mississippi procedural bar rule." Hill, 887 F.2d at 518.
39
aggravating circumstance in a capital sentencing. Johnson does
not speak at all to the contemporaneous objection rule, so we are
bound by Hill to respect Mississippi's application of that rule.
The bar of failure to raise a claim on direct appeal is a
different matter. In Wheat v. Thigpen, 793 F.2d 621 (5th Cir.
1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 930 (1987), we found that the
Mississippi Supreme Court announced this rule in 1983 and then
followed it that year in four additional cases.19 However, we
found that the court in 1985 considered a claim in a collateral
proceeding that had not been raised on direct appeal. Id. at
626.20 We therefore concluded that "the Mississippi Supreme
Court had not clearly announced or strictly or regularly followed
the procedural bar at the time of Wheat's direct appeal," id. at
627, and so proceeded to consider the purportedly barred claim on
the merits. Wheat was adhered to in Reddix v. Thigpen, 805 F.2d
506, 510 (5th Cir. 1986); Edwards v. Scroggy, 849 F.2d 204, 209
n.4 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1059 (1989); and
Smith v. Black, 904 F.2d 950, 971 (5th Cir. 1990), vacated on
other grounds, --- U.S. ---, 112 S. Ct. 1463 (1992), three cases
in which direct appeal and collateral review in the Mississippi
courts took place before 1985.
19
The rule was announced in Wheat v. Thigpen, 431 So. 2d
486 (Miss. 1983), and followed in King v. Thigpen, 441 So. 2d
1365 (Miss. 1983); Evans v. State, 441 So. 2d 520 (Miss. 1983);
cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1264 (1984); Smith v. State, 434 So. 2d
212 (Miss. 1983); and Edwards v. Thigpen, 433 So. 2d 906 (Miss.
1983).
20
The inconsistent case was Caldwell v. State, 481 So. 2d
850 (Miss. 1985).
40
Wiley's direct appeal of his sentence took place in 1986,
and the decision on collateral review applying the procedural bar
was handed down in late 1987. This might suggest that the court
reverted to the rule it stated it intended to enforce in 1983. A
contrary answer is suggested by the Mississippi Supreme Court's
disregard of the direct appeal bar in at least one case decided
subsequent to Wiley's collateral review: in Clemons v. State, 535
So. 2d 1354 (Miss. 1988), vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 738
(1990), the court considered a challenge to the "especially
heinous" aggravating circumstance that was not raised on direct
appeal, stating that it would do so because of the recent
decision in Maynard v. Cartwright and because of its statutory
obligation to review death sentences. Clemons, 535 So. 2d at
1362. However, it is arguable that the Mississippi Supreme
Court's reluctance to impose the procedural bar in Clemons may be
based on, and hence may be limited to, the court's statutory duty
to review death sentences for the influence of passion, prejudice
or other arbitrary factors, and for proportionality. See Miss.
Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3) (1972 & Supp. 1991). We need not decide
whether Mississippi regularly enforced its direct appeal bar at
the time of Wiley's collateral review with respect to the class
of claims presented here, for, as we discuss below, our review of
the merits of the transcript claim convinces us that any error
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
41
D. Merits of the Transcript Claim
In his confession, Wiley told the police "I just shot up,
but I definitely hit him." Because the audio tape of the
confession was difficult to hear, the State transcribed it. The
transcript omitted the word "up" from the passage quoted above.
Wiley contends that constitutional error occurred when the
prosecutor introduced the incorrect transcript and twice read
from it in rebuttal closing argument. Wiley has not suggested
how error of a magnitude sufficient to require reversal arose
from this slight misstatement. Perhaps inclusion of the word
"up" would, if the jury attached a spatial meaning, detract from
the conclusion that Wiley intended to kill. In view of the other
evidence in this case (including the balance of Wiley's
confession), we have no trouble concluding that any error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California,
386 U.S. 18 (1967).
V. EVIDENCE ABOUT THE VICTIM
Wiley argues that the admission of evidence about the
character and worth of the victim, including his reputation in
the community as a generous person and his relationship with his
family, violated his right to a fair trial. Wiley repeatedly
objected at trial and raised the issue on direct appeal, but the
Mississippi Supreme Court rejected his claim. Wiley II, 484 So.
2d at 348. The court refused to consider the claim because of
42
the res judicata principles applicable on collateral review.
Wiley III, 517 So. 2d at 1377.
Claims concerning evidence of this sort are now governed by
Payne v. Tennessee, --- U.S. ---, 111 S. Ct. 2597 (1991).21 The
Court in Payne observed that "[i]n the majority of cases, . . .
victim impact evidence serves entirely legitimate purposes."
Thus, "[a] State may legitimately conclude that evidence about
the victim and about the impact of the murder on the victim's
family is relevant to the jury's decision as to whether the death
penalty should be imposed." Id. at 2608-09. Victim impact
evidence is constitutionally acceptable so long as it is not "so
unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally
unfair." Id. at 2608.
The evidence to which Wiley objects came from Turner's wife,
Marie. She testified about the places she and her husband had
lived in Mississippi, his operation of the store, her assistance
in the law enforcement investigation, and Turner's character.
She agreed that Turner was not a violent or mean person, that he
was known in the community as "Mr. Good Buddy," and that he
occasionally loaned small amounts of money. This evidence hardly
reaches the "unduly prejudicial" level required under Payne for a
constitutional violation. Neither the evidence nor the
prosecutor's argument in this case comes anywhere near the
emotional appeal made by the prosecutor in Payne. See id. at
21
Payne was decided more than one year after the district
court issued its memorandum opinion.
43
2603 (reciting testimony and prosecutor's closing argument). It
is much more like the evidence and argument we found acceptable
in Black v. Collins, 962 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1992), where there
was testimony that the victim "was a hard-working, devoted wife
and mother," and the prosecutor commented on the need of the
victim's son for counseling. Id. at 408 & n.12. Accordingly,
the district court correctly rejected this claim.
VI. PREJUDICIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Wiley argues that the introduction of photographs of
Turner's body lying in a pool of blood and of Patricia Harvey's
blood deprived him of a fair trial. On direct appeal, the
Mississippi Supreme Court held that the photographs were
sufficiently probative and did not simply have the effect of
arousing the jury's emotions. Wiley II, 484 So. 2d at 346. On
collateral review, the claim was held barred by res judicata.
Wiley III, 517 So. 2d at 1377.
The district court refused to grant relief on this claim,
holding that "[t]he federal habeas court's review of state
evidentiary rulings 'is limited to determining whether a trial
judge's error is so extreme that it constituted denial of
fundamental fairness.'" (quoting Mattheson, 751 F.2d at 1445;
additional citation omitted). We cannot conclude that the
photographs were so prejudicial as to render the trial
fundamentally unfair. Although in the past we have recognized
that photographs of the deceased may be relevant to the
44
"especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" aggravating
circumstance, see Hill v. Black, 891 F.2d 89, 92 n.1 (5th Cir.
1989), vacated on other grounds, --- U.S. ---, 111 S. Ct. 28
(1990), invalidation of that factor does not necessarily mean
that photographs of the deceased cannot be introduced. They
certainly may be unnecessary, particularly in a case like this
where guilt is not in issue and all that remains is the fixing of
an appropriate sentence, but the question here is fundamental
unfairness. The photographs were introduced to corroborate the
testimony of the law enforcement officials who found Turner's
body, and are not unusually gruesome. The State did not violate
Wiley's rights by introducing them.
VII. CONCLUSION
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Maynard v.
Cartwright and Clemons v. Mississippi apply to defendants whose
sentences were decreed by judgments that became final before
those decisions were rendered, this case must be returned to the
Mississippi courts for a determination of the proper sentence.
The Mississippi Supreme Court has indicated that state law bars
it from reweighing remaining valid aggravating factors against
mitigating evidence, but it has issued no such holding with
respect to harmless error analysis. Accordingly, because it is
not certain whether Wiley will receive a new sentencing hearing,
we have, in the interest of judicial economy, addressed the
45
constitutional claims arising out of his 1984 sentencing trial.
We reject these claims for the reasons set forth above.
The judgment of the district court is VACATED insofar as it
holds that there was no constitutional error in the jury's use of
the "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" aggravating
circumstance. The case is REMANDED to the district court with
instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus unless the State
of Mississippi initiates appropriate proceedings in state court
within a reasonable time after the issuance of our mandate. In
all other respects, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
46