schriro
director
arizona
department
corrections
landrigan
aka
hill
argued
january
decided
may
respondent
landrigan
refused
allow
counsel
present
testimony
birth
mother
mitigating
evidence
sentencing
hearing
conviction
also
interrupted
counsel
tried
proffer
evidence
told
arizona
trial
judge
wish
present
mitigating
evidence
bring
death
penalty
sentenced
death
sentence
affirmed
state
postconviction
rejected
landrigan
claim
counsel
ineffective
failing
conduct
investigation
mitigating
circumstances
finding
instructed
counsel
sentencing
present
mitigating
evidence
landrigan
filed
federal
habeas
petition
exercising
discretion
district
refused
grant
evidentiary
hearing
make
even
colorable
claim
en
banc
ninth
circuit
reversed
holding
landrigan
counsel
performance
fell
standard
required
strickland
washington
held
district
abuse
discretion
refusing
grant
landrigan
evidentiary
hearing
pp
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
changed
basic
rule
decision
grant
evidentiary
hearing
left
district
sound
discretion
changed
standards
granting
federal
habeas
relief
prohibiting
relief
unless
state
adjudication
resulted
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
based
unreasonable
determination
facts
light
evidence
presented
state
proceeding
deferential
standards
control
whether
grant
habeas
relief
federal
must
take
account
standards
deciding
whether
evidentiary
hearing
appropriate
deciding
whether
grant
evidentiary
hearing
federal
must
consider
whether
hearing
enable
applicant
prove
petition
factual
allegations
true
entitle
applicant
federal
habeas
relief
follows
record
refutes
applicant
factual
allegations
otherwise
precludes
habeas
relief
district
required
hold
evidentiary
hearing
pp
contrary
ninth
circuit
reasoning
district
well
within
discretion
determine
even
benefit
evidentiary
hearing
landrigan
develop
factual
record
entitling
federal
habeas
relief
pp
ninth
circuit
concluded
arizona
state
courts
findings
landrigan
instructed
counsel
offer
mitigating
evidence
took
landrigan
sentencing
colloquy
context
amounting
unreasonable
determination
facts
however
colloquy
language
plainly
indicates
landrigan
told
counsel
present
mitigating
evidence
record
conclusively
dispels
circuit
conclusion
landrigan
statements
referred
birth
mother
testimony
record
state
determination
landrigan
refused
allow
presentation
mitigating
evidence
reasonable
determination
facts
thus
abuse
discretion
district
conclude
landrigan
overcome
bar
granting
federal
habeas
relief
entitled
conclude
regardless
information
counsel
might
uncovered
investigation
landrigan
interrupted
refused
allow
present
thus
conclude
established
recalcitrance
landrigan
demonstrate
prejudice
strickland
even
granted
evidentiary
hearing
pp
ninth
circuit
also
erred
finding
two
alternative
reasons
holding
concluded
arizona
courts
determination
landrigan
claims
frivolous
meritless
unreasonable
application
precedent
based
belief
derived
wiggins
smith
last
minute
decision
block
testimony
excuse
counsel
failure
adequate
investigation
sentencing
however
never
addressed
situation
client
interferes
counsel
efforts
present
mitigating
evidence
sentencing
thus
objectively
unreasonable
arizona
postconviction
conclude
defendant
refused
allow
mitigating
evidence
presented
establish
strickland
prejudice
based
counsel
failure
investigate
possible
mitigating
evidence
ninth
circuit
also
found
record
indicate
landrigan
decision
informed
knowing
understood
consequences
never
held
informed
knowing
requirement
exists
respect
decision
introduce
mitigating
evidence
even
assuming
requirement
exists
case
landrigan
benefit
first
never
developed
claim
properly
arizona
courts
barred
district
granting
evidentiary
hearing
basis
second
counsel
told
sentencing
landrigan
presence
carefully
explained
landrigan
importance
mitigating
evidence
death
penalty
cases
duty
counsel
disclose
mitigating
factors
consideration
light
landrigan
demonstrated
propensity
interjecting
proceedings
doubtful
sat
idly
counsel
lied
discussions
third
apparent
landrigan
statement
sentencing
bring
death
penalty
clearly
understood
consequences
telling
judge
relevant
mitigating
circumstances
pp
ninth
circuit
also
erred
rejecting
district
finding
poor
quality
landrigan
alleged
mitigating
evidence
prevented
making
colorable
prejudice
claim
evidence
landrigan
wishes
offer
offered
birth
mother
allowed
testify
sentencing
much
evidence
way
counsel
proffer
district
reasonably
conclude
additional
evidence
made
difference
sentencing
pp
even
assuming
truth
facts
landrigan
sought
prove
evidentiary
hearing
still
granted
federal
habeas
relief
state
courts
factual
determination
allowed
counsel
present
mitigating
evidence
sentencing
unreasonable
determination
facts
mitigating
evidence
seeks
introduce
changed
result
pp
reversed
remanded
thomas
delivered
opinion
roberts
scalia
kennedy
alito
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
dora
schriro
director
arizona
ment
corrections
petitioner
jeffrey
timothy
landrigan
aka
billy
patrick
wayne
hill
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
may
justice
thomas
delivered
opinion
cases
applicant
federal
habeas
relief
barred
obtaining
evidentiary
hearing
decision
grant
hearing
rests
discretion
district
district
determined
respondent
make
colorable
claim
ineffective
assistance
counsel
therefore
entitled
evidentiary
hearing
reviewing
record
expanding
record
include
additional
evidence
offered
respondent
appeals
held
district
abused
discretion
refusing
grant
hearing
hold
respondent
jeffrey
landrigan
convicted
oklahoma
murder
custody
murder
landrigan
repeatedly
stabbed
another
inmate
subsequently
convicted
assault
battery
deadly
weapon
three
years
later
landrigan
escaped
prison
murdered
chester
dean
dyer
arizona
arizona
jury
found
landrigan
guilty
theft
burglary
felony
murder
caused
victim
death
course
burglary
sentencing
landrigan
counsel
attempted
present
testimony
landrigan
birth
mother
mitigating
evidence
landrigan
request
women
refused
testify
trial
judge
asked
witnesses
refused
landrigan
counsel
responded
client
wishes
app
pet
cert
counsel
explained
advised
landrigan
strongly
think
much
interests
take
particular
position
ibid
questioned
landrigan
landrigan
instructed
lawyer
wish
bring
mitigating
circumstances
attention
defendant
yeah
know
means
defendant
yeah
landrigan
mitigating
circumstances
aware
defendant
far
concerned
still
satisfied
trial
judge
directly
asked
witnesses
testify
refused
judge
asked
counsel
make
proffer
witnesses
testimony
counsel
attempted
explain
witnesses
testify
landrigan
birth
mother
used
drugs
alcohol
including
pregnant
landrigan
landrigan
abused
drugs
alcohol
landrigan
good
father
landrigan
none
counsel
tried
explain
landrigan
worked
legitimate
job
provide
family
landrigan
interrupted
stated
wanted
heard
wife
say
landrigan
explained
working
also
robberies
supporting
family
counsel
characterized
landrigan
first
murder
elements
landrigan
interrupted
clarified
grab
stabbed
responding
counsel
statement
implying
prison
stabbing
involved
assaulted
inmate
knew
landrigan
first
murder
victim
landrigan
interrupted
clarify
inmate
acquainted
first
victim
guy
got
argument
stabbed
times
lucky
lived
ibid
conclusion
sentencing
hearing
judge
asked
landrigan
anything
say
landrigan
made
brief
statement
concluded
think
want
give
death
penalty
bring
right
ready
trial
judge
found
two
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
landrigan
murdered
dyer
expectation
pecuniary
gain
landrigan
previously
convicted
two
felonies
involving
use
threat
violence
another
person
addition
judge
found
two
nonstatutory
mitigating
circumstances
landrigan
family
loved
absence
premeditation
ibid
finally
trial
judge
stated
considered
landrigan
person
scruples
regard
human
life
human
beings
ibid
based
findings
sentenced
landrigan
death
direct
appeal
arizona
unanimously
affirmed
landrigan
sentence
conviction
addressing
claim
relevant
noted
landrigan
stated
desire
mitigating
evidence
presented
behalf
state
landrigan
january
landrigan
filed
petition
state
postconviction
relief
alleged
counsel
fail
ure
explore
additional
grounds
arguing
mitigation
evidence
app
pet
cert
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
specifically
landrigan
maintained
counsel
investigated
biological
component
violent
behavior
interviewing
biological
father
relatives
addition
landrigan
stated
biological
father
confirm
biological
mother
used
drugs
alcohol
pregnant
landrigan
ibid
arizona
postconviction
presided
judge
tried
sentenced
landrigan
rejected
landrigan
claim
found
landrigan
instructed
attorney
present
evidence
sentencing
hearing
difficult
comprehend
landrigan
claim
counsel
presented
evidence
sentencing
noting
landrigan
contention
mitigating
evidence
presented
concluded
landrigan
statements
sentencing
belie
sense
cooperation
ibid
describing
landrigan
claim
frivolous
declined
hold
evidentiary
hearing
dismissed
landrigan
petition
arizona
denied
landrigan
petition
review
june
landrigan
filed
federal
habeas
application
district
determined
expand
ing
record
include
evidence
landrigan
troubled
background
history
drug
alcohol
abuse
family
history
criminal
behavior
landrigan
demonstrate
prejudiced
error
counsel
may
made
landrigan
make
even
colorable
claim
district
refused
grant
evidentiary
hearing
appeal
unanimous
panel
appeals
ninth
circuit
affirmed
full
granted
rehearing
en
banc
landrigan
stewart
reversed
en
banc
appeals
held
landrigan
entitled
evidentiary
hearing
raised
colorable
claim
counsel
performance
fell
standard
required
strickland
washington
respect
counsel
performance
ninth
circuit
found
little
prepare
sentencing
aspect
case
investigation
revealed
wealth
mitigating
evidence
including
family
history
drug
alcohol
abuse
propensity
violence
turning
prejudice
held
arizona
postconviction
determination
landrigan
refused
permit
counsel
present
mitigating
evidence
determination
facts
quoting
appeals
found
landrigan
stated
want
counsel
present
mitigating
evidence
clearly
referring
evidence
attorney
introduce
birth
mother
held
even
landrigan
intended
forgo
presentation
mitigation
evidence
decision
excuse
counsel
failure
conduct
adequate
investigation
prior
sentencing
conclusion
found
reasonable
probability
landrigan
allegations
true
sentencing
judge
reached
different
conclusion
therefore
remanded
case
evidentiary
hearing
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
prior
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
stat
decision
grant
evidentiary
hearing
generally
left
sound
discretion
district
courts
brown
allen
see
also
townsend
sain
basic
rule
changed
see
rule
judge
must
review
answer
transcripts
records
proceedings
determine
whether
evidentiary
hearing
warranted
aedpa
however
changed
standards
granting
federal
habeas
aedpa
congress
prohibited
federal
courts
granting
habeas
relief
unless
state
adjudication
claim
resulted
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
relevant
decision
based
unreasonable
determination
facts
light
evidence
presented
state
proceeding
question
aedpa
whether
federal
believes
state
determination
incorrect
whether
determination
unreasonable
substantially
higher
threshold
see
williams
taylor
aedpa
also
requires
federal
habeas
courts
presume
correctness
state
courts
factual
findings
unless
applicants
rebut
presumption
clear
convincing
evidence
deciding
whether
grant
evidentiary
hearing
federal
must
consider
whether
hearing
enable
applicant
prove
petition
factual
allegations
true
entitle
applicant
federal
habeas
relief
see
mayes
gibson
deferential
standards
prescribed
control
whether
grant
habeas
relief
federal
must
take
account
standards
deciding
whether
evidentiary
hearing
appropriate
see
whether
applicant
allegations
proven
entitle
habeas
relief
question
governed
aedpa
follows
record
refutes
applicant
factual
allegations
otherwise
precludes
habeas
relief
district
required
hold
evidentiary
hearing
ninth
circuit
recognized
point
cases
holding
evidentiary
hearing
required
issues
resolved
reference
state
record
totten
merkle
emphasis
deleted
affirming
denial
evidentiary
hearing
applicant
factual
allegations
fl
ew
face
logic
light
applicant
deliberate
acts
easily
discernible
record
approach
unique
ninth
circuit
see
anderson
attorney
general
holding
evidentiary
hearing
required
applicant
allegations
contravened
existing
record
cf
clark
johnson
holding
hearing
required
applicant
failed
present
clear
convincing
evidence
rebut
state
factual
findings
campbell
vaughn
principle
accords
aedpa
acknowledged
purpose
reduc
ing
delays
execution
state
federal
criminal
sentences
woodford
garceau
citing
williams
taylor
supra
opinion
stevens
congress
wished
curb
delays
prevent
federal
habeas
give
effect
state
convictions
extent
possible
law
district
courts
required
allow
federal
habeas
applicants
develop
even
insubstantial
factual
allegations
evidentiary
hearings
district
courts
forced
reopen
factual
disputes
conclusively
resolved
state
courts
standards
mind
turn
facts
case
iii
several
reasons
appeals
believed
landrigan
might
entitled
federal
habeas
relief
district
therefore
abused
discretion
denying
landrigan
evidentiary
hearing
contrary
district
well
within
discretion
determine
even
benefit
evidentiary
hearing
landrigan
develop
factual
record
entitle
habeas
relief
appeals
first
addressed
state
contention
landrigan
instructed
counsel
offer
mitigating
evidence
landrigan
issued
instruction
counsel
failure
investigate
prejudicial
strickland
appeals
rejected
findings
arizona
direct
appeal
arizona
superior
habeas
review
landrigan
instructed
counsel
introduce
mitigating
evidence
according
ninth
circuit
findings
took
landrigan
colloquy
sentencing
context
manner
amounts
determination
facts
quoting
upon
review
record
material
transcripts
state
courts
disagree
threshold
matter
language
colloquy
plainly
indicates
landrigan
informed
counsel
present
mitigating
evidence
arizona
trial
judge
asked
landrigan
instructed
lawyer
present
mitigating
evidence
landrigan
responded
affirmatively
likewise
asked
relevant
mitigating
evidence
landrigan
answered
far
concerned
app
pet
cert
statements
establish
arizona
postconviction
determination
facts
reasonable
worth
noting
judge
presiding
postconviction
review
ideally
situated
make
assessment
judge
sentenced
landrigan
discussed
issues
notwithstanding
plainness
statements
appeals
concluded
referred
specific
testimony
counsel
planned
offer
landrigan
birth
mother
appeals
concluded
landrigan
due
counsel
failure
investigate
known
mitigating
evidence
wants
explore
record
conclusively
dispels
interpretation
first
landrigan
birth
mother
offered
testimony
overlaps
evidence
landrigan
wants
present
example
landrigan
wants
present
evidence
biological
father
confirm
biological
mother
alcohol
drug
use
pregnancy
record
shows
counsel
planned
call
landrigan
birth
mother
testify
drug
us
pregnancy
possible
effects
drug
use
second
landrigan
interrupted
repeatedly
counsel
tried
proffer
anything
considered
mitigating
even
refused
allow
attorney
proffer
worked
regular
job
one
point
behavior
confirms
plain
transcript
colloquy
landrigan
undermined
presentation
mitigating
evidence
attorney
might
uncovered
record
us
arizona
determination
landrigan
refused
allow
presentation
mitigating
evidence
reasonable
determination
facts
regard
agree
initial
appeals
panel
reviewed
case
constellation
refusals
mitigating
evidence
presented
case
surely
bright
star
case
illuminate
state
client
mind
nature
counsel
dilemma
quite
brightly
one
flashes
insight
fulgurous
record
supplies
landrigan
stewart
arizona
postconviction
reasonably
determined
landrigan
instructed
attorney
bring
mitigation
attention
sentencing
app
pet
cert
abuse
discretion
district
conclude
landrigan
overcome
bar
granting
federal
habeas
relief
district
entitled
conclude
regardless
information
counsel
might
uncovered
investigation
landrigan
interrupted
refused
allow
counsel
present
evidence
accordingly
district
conclude
established
recalcitrance
landrigan
demonstrate
prejudice
strickland
even
granted
evidentiary
hearing
appeals
offered
two
alternative
reasons
holding
landrigan
inability
make
showing
prejudice
strickland
bar
potential
habeas
relief
thus
evidentiary
hearing
appeals
held
even
landrigan
want
mitigating
evidence
presented
arizona
courts
determination
landrigan
claims
unreasonable
application
precedent
citing
holding
founded
belief
derived
wiggins
smith
landrigan
apparently
decision
excuse
counsel
failure
conduct
adequate
investigation
prior
sentencing
neither
wiggins
strickland
addresses
situation
client
interferes
counsel
efforts
present
mitigating
evidence
sentencing
wiggins
supra
focus
whether
investigation
supporting
counsel
decision
introduce
mitigating
evidence
wiggins
background
reasonable
emphasis
added
deleted
indeed
never
addressed
situation
like
rompilla
beard
appeals
also
relied
defendant
refused
assist
development
mitigation
case
inform
want
mitigating
evidence
presented
short
time
arizona
postconviction
decision
objectively
unreasonable
conclude
defendant
refused
allow
presentation
mitigating
evidence
establish
strickland
prejudice
based
counsel
failure
investigate
possible
mitigating
evidence
appeals
also
stated
record
indicate
landrigan
decision
present
mitigating
evidence
informed
knowing
trial
dialogue
landrigan
tells
us
little
understanding
consequences
decision
ibid
never
imposed
informed
knowing
requirement
upon
defendant
decision
introduce
evidence
iowa
tovar
explaining
waiver
right
counsel
must
knowing
intelligent
even
assuming
however
informed
knowing
requirement
exists
case
landrigan
benefit
three
reasons
first
landrigan
never
presented
claim
arizona
rather
argued
complied
evidence
offered
thus
landrigan
failed
develop
claim
properly
arizona
courts
therefore
barred
district
granting
evidentiary
hearing
basis
second
landrigan
presence
counsel
told
sentencing
carefully
explained
landrigan
importance
mitigating
evidence
especially
concerning
fact
state
seeking
death
penalty
app
pet
cert
counsel
also
told
explained
landrigan
counsel
duty
disclose
mitigating
factors
th
ourt
consideration
regarding
sentencing
ibid
light
landrigan
demonstrated
propensity
interjecting
proceedings
doubtful
landrigan
sat
idly
counsel
lied
previously
discussed
issues
landrigan
counsel
conceded
oral
argument
never
required
specific
colloquy
ensure
defendant
knowingly
intelligently
refused
present
mitigating
evidence
tr
oral
arg
third
appeals
overlooked
landrigan
final
statement
sentencing
think
want
give
death
penalty
bring
right
ready
app
pet
cert
apparent
statement
landrigan
clearly
understood
consequences
telling
judge
far
concerned
mitigating
circumstances
aware
iv
finally
appeals
erred
rejecting
district
finding
poor
quality
landrigan
alleged
mitigating
evidence
prevented
making
colorable
claim
prejudice
app
pet
cert
summarized
appeals
landrigan
wanted
introduce
mitigation
evidence
exposed
alcohol
drugs
utero
may
resulted
cognitive
behavioral
deficiencies
consistent
fetal
alcohol
syndrome
abandoned
birth
mother
suffered
abandonment
attachment
issues
well
behavioral
problems
throughout
childhood
adoptive
mother
also
alcoholic
landrigan
alcohol
substance
abuse
began
early
age
based
biological
family
history
violence
landrigan
claims
may
also
genetically
predisposed
violence
explained
last
sentence
refer
information
landrigan
birth
mother
offered
landrigan
allowed
testify
indeed
state
postconviction
much
evidence
way
counsel
proffer
app
pet
cert
district
reasonably
conclude
additional
evidence
made
difference
sentencing
sum
district
abuse
discretion
finding
landrigan
establish
prejudice
based
counsel
failure
present
evidence
wishes
offer
landrigan
mitigation
evidence
weak
postconviction
well
acquainted
landrigan
exceedingly
violent
past
seen
first
hand
belligerent
behavior
difficult
improve
upon
initial
appeals
panel
conclusion
prospect
chilling
years
age
landrigan
murdered
one
man
repeatedly
stabbed
another
one
escaped
prison
within
two
months
murdered
still
another
man
arizona
aptly
put
dealing
one
landrigan
claims
comments
sentencing
judge
defendant
failed
show
remorse
offer
mitigating
evidence
flaunted
menacing
behavior
record
assuring
genetics
made
way
helpful
prejudice
citations
omitted
appeals
erred
holding
district
abused
discretion
declining
grant
landrigan
evidentiary
hearing
even
assuming
truth
facts
landrigan
sought
prove
evidentiary
hearing
still
granted
federal
habeas
relief
state
courts
factual
determination
landrigan
allowed
counsel
present
mitigating
evidence
sentencing
unreasonable
determination
facts
mitigating
evidence
seeks
introduce
changed
result
circumstances
district
discretion
deny
evidentiary
hearing
judgment
appeals
ninth
circuit
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
dora
schriro
director
arizona
department
corrections
petitioner
jeffrey
timothy
landrigan
aka
billy
patrick
wayne
hill
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
may
justice
stevens
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
dissenting
significant
mitigating
evidence
evidence
may
well
explained
respondent
criminal
conduct
unruly
behavior
capital
sentencing
hearing
unknown
time
sentencing
years
later
respondent
learn
suffers
serious
psychological
condition
sheds
important
light
earlier
actions
reason
mitigating
evidence
unavailable
respondent
counsel
failed
conduct
constitutionally
adequate
investigation
see
wiggins
smith
spite
holds
respondent
entitled
evidentiary
hearing
explore
prejudicial
impact
counsel
inadequate
representation
reasons
respondent
waived
right
introduce
mitigating
evidence
counsel
might
uncovered
ante
evidence
made
difference
sentencing
anyway
ante
without
benefit
evidentiary
hearing
pure
guesswork
decision
rests
parsimonious
appraisal
capital
defendant
constitutional
right
sentencing
decision
reflect
meaningful
consideration
relevant
mitigating
evidence
see
quarterman
skipper
south
carolina
lockett
ohio
begrudging
appreciation
need
knowing
intelligent
waiver
constitutionally
protected
trial
rights
see
schneckloth
bustamonte
johnson
zerbst
cramped
reading
record
unlike
en
banc
appeals
properly
accounted
important
constitutional
factual
considerations
narrow
holding
district
abused
discretion
denying
respondent
evidentiary
hearing
affirmed
see
townsend
sain
see
also
rule
supp
iv
one
even
seriously
contends
counsel
investigation
possible
mitigating
evidence
constitutionally
sufficient
see
wiggins
strickland
washington
indeed
majority
dissenting
judges
en
banc
appeals
agreed
counsel
limited
investigation
landrigan
background
fell
standards
professional
representation
prevailing
time
sentencing
hearing
bea
dissenting
see
record
us
appears
landrigan
counsel
little
prepare
sentencing
aspect
case
comparison
results
minimal
investigation
counsel
amount
available
mitigating
evidence
landrigan
claims
available
leaves
us
grave
doubts
whether
landrigan
received
effective
assistance
counsel
penalty
phase
proceeding
list
evidence
counsel
failed
investigate
long
instance
counsel
complete
psychological
evaluation
respondent
know
uncovered
serious
organic
brain
disorder
failed
consult
expert
explore
effects
respondent
birth
mother
drinking
drug
use
pregnancy
never
developed
history
respondent
troubled
childhood
adoptive
family
childhood
marked
physical
emotional
abuse
neglect
adoptive
parents
serious
substance
abuse
problems
including
overdose
eighth
ninth
grade
classroom
stunted
education
recurrent
placement
substance
abuse
rehabilitation
facilities
psychiatric
ward
police
custody
see
declaration
shannon
sumpter
app
counsel
failure
develop
background
evidence
glaring
even
sentencing
judge
noted
received
little
information
concerning
defendant
difficult
family
history
app
pet
cert
time
sentencing
counsel
prepared
put
testimony
respondent
birth
mother
measure
especially
capital
case
meager
investigation
fell
objective
standard
reasonableness
strickland
given
deficient
performance
issue
whether
counsel
inadequate
investigation
prejudiced
outcome
sentencing
bulk
opinion
argues
district
reasonably
found
respondent
waived
right
present
mitigating
evidence
see
ante
shall
explain
argument
finds
support
constitution
record
case
ii
well
established
citizen
waiver
constitutional
right
must
knowing
intelligent
voluntary
far
back
johnson
zerbst
held
courts
must
every
reasonable
presumption
waiver
fundamental
constitutional
rights
since
unyielding
insistence
defendant
waiver
trial
rights
given
effect
unless
illinois
rodriguez
citing
zerbst
years
zerbst
decision
schneckloth
bustamonte
added
crucial
content
jurisprudence
knowing
intelligent
waiver
constitutional
rights
case
considered
whether
zerbst
requirement
applied
citizen
consent
search
seizure
determining
decision
turned
vast
difference
rights
protect
fair
criminal
trial
rights
guaranteed
fourth
amendment
explained
requirement
waiver
articulated
case
involving
validity
defendant
decision
forgo
right
constitutionally
guaranteed
protect
fair
trial
reliability
process
almost
without
exception
requirement
knowing
intelligent
waiver
applied
rights
constitution
guarantees
criminal
defendant
order
preserve
fair
trial
ran
extensive
list
trial
rights
requirement
already
noted
zerbst
requirement
applied
waiver
trial
rights
situations
guilty
pleas
said
must
carefully
scrutinized
determine
whether
accused
knew
understood
rights
entitled
trial
emphasis
trial
rights
already
clear
went
state
strict
standard
waiver
applied
rights
guaranteed
criminal
defendant
insure
accorded
greatest
possible
opportunity
utilize
every
facet
constitutional
model
fair
criminal
trial
trial
conducted
derogation
model
leaves
open
possibility
trial
reached
unfair
result
precisely
protections
specified
constitution
provided
constitution
requires
every
effort
made
see
defendant
criminal
case
unknowingly
relinquished
basic
protections
framers
thought
indispensable
fair
trial
given
unmistakable
focus
trial
rights
makes
little
difference
specifically
imposed
knowing
requirement
upon
defendant
decision
introduce
evidence
ante
capital
defendant
right
present
mitigating
evidence
firmly
exercised
sentencing
trial
capital
defendant
right
sentencing
authority
give
full
consideration
mitigating
evidence
might
support
sentence
death
paramount
importance
cases
important
right
representation
counsel
protected
zerbst
trial
rights
discussed
schneckloth
longstanding
precedent
zerbst
schneckloth
waiver
case
majority
cites
iowa
tovar
requires
waiver
right
adduce
evidence
knowing
intelligent
voluntary
state
postconviction
conclusion
respondent
completely
waived
right
present
mitigating
evidence
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
see
respondent
statements
sentencing
hearing
qualify
informed
waiver
precedents
understand
important
remember
context
waiver
issue
arose
postconviction
proceedings
respondent
never
brought
freestanding
claim
failed
knowingly
intelligently
waive
right
present
mitigating
evidence
see
keeney
considering
claim
defendant
guilty
plea
knowing
intelligent
respondent
believes
never
waived
right
present
available
mitigating
evidence
see
brief
respondent
landrigan
alleged
intended
forgo
right
put
birth
mother
witnesses
part
iii
infra
respondent
claim
counsel
ineffective
failing
investigate
present
mitigating
evidence
light
posture
conclusion
respondent
make
argument
failed
present
arizona
courts
nothing
short
baffling
see
ante
respondent
never
intended
waiver
become
issue
never
thought
issue
waiver
became
concern
forced
answer
state
argument
establish
prejudice
strickland
waived
right
present
mitigating
evidence
state
postconviction
conclusion
ince
defendant
instructed
attorney
bring
mitigation
attention
claim
counsel
ineffective
additional
grounds
arguing
mitigation
evidence
app
pet
cert
instructive
state
postconviction
considered
waiver
issue
within
context
prejudice
prong
respondent
claim
even
respondent
claim
within
meaning
counsel
ineffective
adequately
investigating
presenting
mitigating
evidence
argument
particularly
one
made
alternative
response
another
party
fundamentally
different
claim
cf
yee
escondido
turning
back
claim
respondent
purported
waiver
appreciated
light
counsel
deficient
performance
take
one
example
respondent
counsel
asked
psychologist
mickey
mcmahon
conduct
initial
interview
respondent
mcmahon
submitted
affidavit
stating
experience
quite
different
working
relationship
counsel
death
penalty
cases
psychological
study
went
series
steps
declaration
mickey
mcmahon
app
case
mcmahon
authorized
conduct
next
step
psychological
testing
told
cognitive
neuropsychological
deficits
observed
interview
even
though
mcmahon
told
respondent
counsel
much
work
needed
provide
appropriate
psychological
study
death
penalty
case
counsel
refused
let
investigate
thorough
investigation
revealed
respondent
suffers
organic
brain
disorder
see
slip
recognizing
possible
neurological
damage
relevant
mitigating
evidence
years
mcmahon
aborted
examination
another
psychologist
thomas
thompson
conducted
complete
analysis
respondent
based
extensive
interviews
respondent
several
family
members
review
family
history
multiple
clinical
tests
thompson
diagnosed
respondent
antisocial
personality
disorder
see
declaration
thomas
thompson
app
thompson
filed
affidavit
district
describing
diagnosis
respondent
actions
constitute
lifestyle
choice
sense
individual
operating
large
degree
freedom
come
define
free
inherited
prenatal
early
developmental
factors
severely
impaired
landrigan
ability
function
society
expects
individuals
operate
organized
adaptive
manner
taking
account
actions
consequences
behaviors
impact
society
individual
members
based
evaluation
investigation
along
relevant
data
type
responsible
functioning
simply
beyond
landrigan
far
back
one
go
indication
ever
capacities
day
sentencing
hearing
mitigating
evidence
respondent
counsel
investigated
testimony
respondent
birth
mother
none
neuropsychological
information
available
respondent
time
purported
waiver
yet
conspicuously
avoids
mention
respondent
organic
brain
disorder
instead
provides
incomplete
list
mitigating
evidence
respondent
presented
incorrectly
assumes
respondent
birth
mother
covered
see
ante
unless
missed
portion
record
indicating
respondent
birth
mother
trained
psychologists
neither
offered
expert
testimony
respondent
organic
brain
disorder
course
true
respondent
aware
many
individual
pieces
mitigating
evidence
contributed
thompson
subsequent
diagnosis
knew
birth
mother
abandoned
age
six
months
see
app
biological
family
extensive
criminal
history
see
adoptive
mother
affective
disturbances
chronic
alcoholism
routinely
drank
vodka
passed
see
frequently
strike
even
hit
ting
frying
pan
hard
enough
leave
dent
childhood
difficult
exhibited
abandonment
attachment
problems
early
age
see
bad
temper
often
threw
violent
tantrums
child
see
began
getting
trouble
using
alcohol
drugs
early
age
adolescence
begun
series
placements
juvenile
detention
facilities
psychiatric
ward
twice
drug
abuse
rehabilitation
programs
perhaps
respondent
also
knew
biological
mother
abused
alcohol
amphetamines
pregnancy
utero
exposure
drugs
alcohol
deleterious
effects
child
see
even
respondent
knew
things
assume
understand
consequences
way
expert
psychologist
without
years
advanced
education
battery
complicated
testing
respondent
know
experiences
resulted
serious
organic
brain
disorder
effect
disorder
might
behavior
precisely
counsel
failed
conduct
proper
investigation
know
important
evidence
available
purportedly
waived
right
present
mitigating
evidence
hard
see
respondent
claim
strickland
prejudice
prejudiced
counsel
strickland
error
see
hill
lockhart
without
ever
acknowledging
respondent
lacked
information
clings
counsel
discussion
respondent
importance
mitigating
evidence
ante
majority
also
places
great
weight
fact
counsel
explained
respondent
counsel
duty
disclose
mitigating
factors
th
ourt
consideration
regarding
sentencing
ibid
leaving
aside
fact
counsel
deficient
performance
demonstrate
understanding
importance
mitigating
evidence
let
alone
knowledge
evidence
counsel
abstract
explanation
satisfy
demands
zerbst
schneckloth
unless
respondent
knew
significant
mitigation
evidence
available
made
knowing
intelligent
waiver
constitutional
rights
see
battenfield
gibson
holding
defendant
waiver
invalid
indication
counsel
explained
specific
mitigation
evidence
available
coleman
mitchell
see
generally
tovar
iii
even
putative
waiver
fully
informed
arizona
postconviction
determination
respondent
instructed
attorney
bring
mitigation
attention
sentencing
plainly
contradicted
record
app
pet
cert
nevertheless
defers
finding
concluding
unreasonable
determination
facts
context
federal
habeas
however
deference
imply
abandonment
abdication
judicial
review
cockrell
careful
examination
record
material
transcripts
state
courts
ante
indicate
respondent
intended
make
waiver
went
beyond
testimony
birth
mother
reads
following
exchange
definitive
proof
respondent
informed
counsel
present
mitigating
evidence
ibid
landrigan
instructed
lawyer
wish
bring
mitigating
circumstances
attention
defendant
yeah
know
means
defendant
yeah
landrigan
mitigating
circumstances
aware
defendant
far
concerned
app
pet
cert
also
infers
respondent
disruptive
behavior
sentencing
hearing
undermined
presentation
mitigating
evidence
attorney
might
uncovered
ante
record
material
conclusively
establish
respondent
waived
right
present
mitigating
evidence
counsel
made
available
brief
exchange
respondent
trial
must
considered
context
entire
sentencing
proceeding
dialogue
came
immediately
lengthy
colloquy
trial
respondent
counsel
farrell
honor
time
two
witnesses
wished
testify
one
brought
state
client
sandy
landrigan
second
witness
client
natural
mother
virginia
gipson
believe
people
important
evidence
believed
take
mitigation
concerning
client
however
landrigan
made
clear
wish
anyone
family
testify
behalf
today
talked
sandra
landrigan
talked
number
times
confirmed
thought
important
evidence
present
also
talked
gipson
evidence
think
important
brought
attention
talking
jeff
today
agreed
one
case
son
testify
behalf
farrell
basically
client
wishes
honor
told
order
effectively
represent
especially
concerning
fact
state
seeking
death
penalty
mitigating
factors
duty
disclose
factors
consideration
regarding
sentencing
adamant
want
testimony
family
specifically
two
people
mother
subpoena
well
flown
app
pet
cert
emphasis
added
respondent
answers
trial
judge
questions
must
read
light
discussion
judge
immediately
turned
counsel
respondent
asked
mitigating
circumstances
entire
proceeding
point
possible
testimony
birth
mother
counsel
informed
respondent
want
testimony
family
neither
counsel
respondent
said
anything
mitigating
evidence
fair
reading
full
sentencing
transcript
makes
clear
respondent
answers
referred
testimony
birth
respondent
answers
necessarily
infected
counsel
failure
investigate
respondent
dispute
instructed
counsel
present
family
testimony
brief
respondent
landrigan
contends
intent
effect
broad
waiver
instead
merely
waive
presentation
testimony
mother
limited
waiver
change
fact
unaware
words
mitigating
circumstances
include
organic
brain
disorder
medical
consequences
mother
drinking
drug
use
pregnancy
abusive
upbringing
adoptive
respondent
mind
words
mitigating
circumstances
meant
incomplete
evidence
counsel
offered
present
en
banc
appeals
explained
ad
lawyer
conducted
investigation
uncovered
types
mitigating
evidence
landrigan
might
well
able
direct
mitigating
circumstances
therefore
error
read
respondent
simple
yeah
far
concerned
waiving
anything
little
knew
available
accordingly
state
postconviction
finding
petitioner
waived
right
present
mitigating
evidence
unreasonable
determination
facts
correct
postconviction
judge
judge
sentenced
respondent
must
remember
postconviction
opinion
written
five
years
sentencing
proceeding
although
judge
memory
deserves
deference
opinion
reflects
many
flaws
opinion
instead
reexamining
entire
trial
transcript
quoted
exchange
respondent
app
pet
cert
unlike
repeated
reference
respondent
behavior
sentencing
mention
analysis
consists
incomplete
review
transcript
unsupported
summary
conclusion
respondent
told
attorney
present
mitigating
evidence
believe
neither
constitution
record
supports
waiver
holding
respondent
least
entitled
evidentiary
hearing
question
well
broader
claim
ineffective
assistance
counsel
respondent
insists
never
instructed
counsel
investigate
mitigating
evidence
even
state
concedes
finding
issue
see
brief
respondent
judge
kozinski
state
finding
even
inference
investigation
finding
trial
made
goes
landrigan
attitude
allowing
lawyer
investigate
counsel
state
quoting
ninth
circuit
oral
argument
audio
long
maintained
permitted
presentation
mitigating
evidence
counsel
prepared
introduce
evidence
testimony
birth
mother
see
app
pet
cert
respondent
planned
call
counsel
evidentiary
hearing
testify
assertions
see
app
counsel
best
position
clarify
whether
respondent
gave
blanket
instructions
investigate
present
mitigating
evidence
wrong
decide
case
evidence
regarding
respondent
instructions
developed
iv
almost
afterthought
holds
alternative
district
abuse
discretion
finding
landrigan
establish
prejudice
based
counsel
failure
present
evidence
wishes
offer
ante
course
cold
incomplete
factual
record
describing
respondent
mitigation
case
weak
emphasizing
exceedingly
violent
past
belligerent
behavior
sentencing
concludes
way
respondent
establish
prejudice
evidence
seeks
introduce
ibid
reasoning
flawed
several
respects
first
discussed
bears
repeating
thoroughly
misrepresents
respondent
mitigating
evidence
easy
view
respondent
mitigation
case
weak
assume
away
powerful
evidence
ignores
respondent
organic
brain
disorder
explained
criminal
history
also
repeated
outbursts
mistakenly
assumes
respondent
birth
mother
testified
medical
consequences
fetal
alcohol
syndrome
inaccurately
women
described
turbulent
childhood
adoptive
family
repeatedly
said
evidence
kind
influence
sentencer
decision
whether
death
proper
punishment
see
wiggins
vidence
defendant
background
character
relevant
belief
long
held
society
defendants
commit
criminal
acts
attributable
disadvantaged
background
emotional
mental
problems
may
less
culpable
defendants
excuse
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
eddings
oklahoma
doubt
evidence
turbulent
family
history
beatings
harsh
father
severe
emotional
disturbance
particularly
relevant
evidence
might
well
convinced
sentencer
death
sentence
appropriate
second
aggravating
circumstances
relied
sentencing
judge
strong
makes
sure
respondent
already
committed
two
violent
offenses
terry
williams
still
concluded
suffered
prejudice
attorney
failed
investigate
present
mitigating
evidence
see
williams
taylor
noting
williams
confessed
two
separate
violent
assaults
elderly
victims
including
one
left
elderly
woman
graphic
description
williams
childhood
filled
abuse
privation
reality
mentally
retarded
might
well
influenced
jury
appraisal
moral
aggravating
factor
landrigan
committed
crime
pecuniary
serious
doubts
en
banc
appeals
explained
limited
evidence
regarding
pecuniary
gain
aggravator
judge
noted
victim
apartment
ransacked
perpetrator
looking
something
demonstrated
expectation
pecuniary
gain
even
though
landrigan
actually
steal
anything
value
emphasis
added
thus
ignore
respondent
violent
past
certainly
possible
even
likely
evidence
neurological
disorder
fetal
alcohol
syndrome
abusive
upbringing
influenced
sentencing
judge
assessment
moral
blameworthiness
altered
outcome
sentencing
respondent
plainly
alleged
facts
substantiated
evidentiary
hearing
entitle
relief
see
townsend
end
decision
explained
increasingly
familiar
effort
guard
floodgates
litigation
immediately
turning
facts
case
district
courts
required
allow
federal
habeas
applicants
develop
even
insubstantial
factual
allegations
evidentiary
hearings
district
courts
forced
reopen
factual
disputes
conclusively
resolved
state
courts
ante
however
habeas
cases
requiring
evidentiary
hearings
number
clear
evidence
particular
classification
habeas
proceedings
burdened
dockets
federal
courts
keeney
kennedy
dissenting
even
prior
passage
antiterriorism
effective
death
act
district
courts
held
evidentiary
hearings
federal
habeas
cases
see
report
federal
courts
study
committee
subcommittee
role
federal
courts
relation
mar
richard
posner
chair
federal
courts
study
committee
working
papers
subcommittee
reports
july
figure
makes
abundantly
clear
justice
always
cause
heavens
fall
therefore
well
heed
justice
kennedy
reminder
take
steps
diminish
likelihood
federal
courts
base
legal
decision
accurate
assessment
facts
keeney
dissenting
opinion
may
well
true
respondent
completely
waived
right
present
mitigating
evidence
evidence
adequately
investigated
time
sentencing
may
also
true
respondent
mitigating
evidence
outweigh
violent
past
certainly
true
however
evidentiary
hearing
provide
answers
questions
emphatically
agree
majority
judges
en
banc
appeals
abuse
discretion
refuse
conduct
hearing
capital
case
accordingly
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
although
issue
aedpa
generally
prohibits
federal
habeas
courts
granting
evidentiary
hearings
applicants
failed
develop
factual
bases
claims
state
courts
indeed
appeals
recognizing
point
applied
reject
certain
arizona
factual
findings
established
hearing
futile
landrigan
made
argument
first
time
motion
rehearing
denial
postconviction
petition
arizona
law
defendant
raise
new
claims
motion
rehearing
state
byers
app
overruled
grounds
state
pope
en
banc
footnotes
even
troubling
prior
sentencing
counsel
clues
find
important
mitigating
evidence
appeals
noted
respondent
alleged
birth
mother
sent
letter
counsel
explaining
landrigan
began
drinking
early
age
adoptive
mother
alcoholic
walk
around
nude
front
landrigan
father
death
row
arkansas
link
darrel
messed
whole
life
needs
help
mentally
like
father
en
banc
counsel
failed
follow
leads
see
brookhart
janis
right
confrontation
adams
ex
rel
mccann
right
jury
trial
barker
wingo
right
speedy
trial
green
right
free
double
jeopardy
see
smith
waiver
privilege
compulsory
administrative
agency
emspak
waiver
privilege
compulsory
congressional
committee
gault
waiver
counsel
juvenile
proceeding
see
mccarthy
boykin
alabama
von
moltke
gillies
uveges
pennsylvania
see
quarterman
brewer
quarterman
skipper
south
carolina
lockett
ohio
see
tovar
waiver
right
counsel
constitutional
rights
criminal
process
generally
must
intelligent
ac
done
sufficient
awareness
relevant
quoting
brady
emphasis
added
also
misapplies
failing
account
holding
nder
opening
clause
failure
develop
factual
basis
claim
established
unless
lack
diligence
greater
fault
attributable
prisoner
prisoner
counsel
williams
taylor
emphasis
added
diligence
depends
upon
whether
prisoner
made
reasonable
attempt
light
information
available
time
investigate
pursue
claims
state
time
petitioner
filed
state
postconviction
petition
impression
waived
right
present
mitigating
evidence
state
postconviction
informed
otherwise
immediately
raised
argument
motion
rehearing
see
ante
consequence
today
decision
prisoners
forced
file
separate
claims
anticipation
every
possible
argument
might
made
response
genuine
claims
way
advance
antiterrrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
acknowledged
purpose
reduc
ing
delays
execution
state
federal
criminal
sentences
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
investigator
named
george
labash
similar
experience
respondent
counsel
although
counsel
hired
labash
look
respondent
case
labash
stated
affidavit
counsel
ask
much
declaration
george
labash
app
fact
labash
spent
hours
working
case
never
conducted
mitigation
investigation
described
experience
working
respondent
counsel
quite
frustrating
disregards
another
important
contextual
clue
respondent
counsel
requested
three
continuances
investigate
prepare
mitigation
case
respondent
consented
record
one
app
respondent
instructed
counsel
develop
mitigating
evidence
consent
difficult
explain
similarly
clear
evidence
respondent
cooperated
counsel
minimal
investigation
allowed
counsel
interview
birth
mother
assisted
counsel
gathering
medical
records
freely
met
mcmahon
see
app
pet
cert
app
actions
man
wanted
present
mitigating
evidence
contrary
contention
see
ante
respondent
birth
mother
testified
difficult
childhood
adoptive
family
fact
respondent
sought
state
postconviction
evidentiary
hearing
adoptive
sister
present
evidence
see
petition
relief
app
petitioner
sister
shannon
sumpter
also
verified
mother
landrigan
alcoholic
disease
caused
significant
problems
within
family
impacted
adversely
petitioner
growing
moreover
provided
additional
information
concerning
familial
problems
preceded
time
sentencing
may
offered
least
partial
explanation
petitioner
conduct
sentencing
see
declaration
thomas
thompson
app
stating
tests
revealed
respondent
deficits
cognitive
processing
poor
adaptability
incomplete
understanding
surroundings
effect
others
limited
impulse
control
emphasis
added
noting
individuals
antisocial
personality
disorder
typically
act
irresponsibl
across
areas
daily
lives
decisions
characterized
impulsivity
emphasis
added
fact
terse
prejudice
analysis
relies
heavily
colorful
quote
original
ninth
circuit
panel
see
ante
declines
mention
one
judge
panel
switched
vote
joined
en
banc
majority
consideration
respondent
mitigating
evidence
notwithstanding
repeated
assertions
sentencing
judge
consider
respondent
courtroom
behavior
aggravating
factor
compare
ante
app
pet
cert
fact
sentencing
judge
noted
day
sentencing
respondent
acted
appropriately
courtroom
conduct
good
even
important
understood
behavior
day
mere
release
frustration
aggravating
factor
certainly
indication
intent
waive
right
present
mitigating
evidence
sentencing
judge
treated
respondent
behavior
day
sentencing
reason
credit
earlier
good
behavior
mitigating
circumstance
event
defendant
poor
behavior
trial
listed
aggravating
factor
arizona
capital
sentencing
statute
see
rev
stat
ann
west
supp