Billy Raulerson v. Warden
928 F.3d 987
11th Cir.2019Background
- Raulerson murdered three people in two days (two teenagers—one sodomized—and a woman he robbed); he confessed and physical evidence linked him to the crimes.
- At trial defense counsel asserted Raulerson was "guilty but mentally retarded"; Georgia law made a defendant ineligible for death only if he proved intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Defense hired multiple experts (psychologist, psychiatrist, neurologist, neuropsychologist, social worker) who investigated school, medical, criminal records and family history; some experts diagnosed intellectual disability, others questioned onset and malingering.
- The jury rejected the intellectual-disability defense, convicted Raulerson of capital murder and returned three death sentences; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Raulerson pursued state habeas (ineffective assistance at penalty phase; due-process challenge to Georgia’s beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden; Atkins claim) and lost; he then filed federal habeas, which the district court denied; Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to further investigate/present mitigation at penalty phase | Raulerson: counsel failed to investigate and call >30 additional witnesses and experts; prejudice from omitted mitigation | State: counsel performed a substantial, reasonable investigation; strategic choice to rely on guilt-phase mitigation; additional evidence would be cumulative or risk rebuttal | Court: No deficient performance; investigation adequate and strategic decision reasonable; alternate prejudice analysis unnecessary; claim denied |
| Due process challenge to Georgia’s beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden for proving intellectual disability | Raulerson: Georgia’s rule violates Fourteenth Amendment by imposing an unconstitutional procedural barrier post-Atkins | State: Atkins left procedures to the states; Georgia’s standard is analogous to non-constitutional insanity standard and constitutionally permissible | Court: Section 2254(d) deference applies; Atkins and Cooper do not clearly establish that Georgia’s burden is unconstitutional; superior court’s rejection was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law; claim denied |
| Atkins / "actual innocence" of death penalty based on intellectual disability | Raulerson: he is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under Atkins | State: jury rejected intellectual-disability factual issue; state-court findings presumed correct; record does not clearly and convincingly prove disability or onset before 18 | Court: Treating claim as Atkins claim, even under generous assumptions, Raulerson failed to prove intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled violates Eighth Amendment)
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996) (heightened burden for incompetency violates due process)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Humphrey, 662 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (discussing Georgia burden for intellectual-disability claims and AEDPA review)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (rejecting strict IQ cutoff; recognizing imprecision of IQ testing in Atkins context)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (states must follow clinical standards and avoid outdated factors when assessing intellectual disability)