Brian Keith Terrell v. GDCP Warden
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4497
11th Cir.2014Background
- Terrell, a Georgia death row inmate, appeals a district court denial of federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- Three trials: first two ended without a verdict or with reversed outcomes; third trial convicted Terrell of malice murder and ten forgery counts and imposed a death sentence.
- Counsel Strauss used a residual doubt defense at sentencing; Terrell testified he committed forgeries but not the murder.
- Georgia Supreme Court affirmed most convictions and the death sentence; state habeas relief was granted for sentencing-phase issues but reversed on appeal.
- This court granted COA on two ineffective-assistance claims: failure to obtain a forensic pathologist and failure to challenge the armed robbery aggravator; the court affirms the district court’s denial of relief under AEDPA.
- AEDPA deference requires that the state court’s decision be either unreasonable in applying Supreme Court law or unreasonable in its factual determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not hiring a forensic pathologist | Terrell argues prejudice from lack of pathology testimony would have changed aggravator findings. | State argues no substantial probability the jury would differ on depravity of mind regardless of pathology evidence. | No reasonable probability of a different outcome; district court affirmed. |
| Ineffective assistance for challenging armed robbery aggravator | Terrell contends counsel abandoned a successful strategy and conceded armed robbery at trial three. | State argues counsel did not concede and reasonably challenged the aggravator; testimony supported a finding of armed robbery. | State court correctly found no deficient performance or prejudice; AEDPA bars relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; two-prong test and prejudice requirement)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA review is highly deferential; fairminded jurists could disagree)
- Gissendaner v. Seaboldt, 735 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2013) (doubly deferential review under Strickland and AEDPA)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2010) (reweigh mitigation evidence in prejudice assessment)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (distinguishes incorrect vs. unreasonable application of federal law)
- Evans v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 703 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2013) (en banc; deference under AEDPA and Strickland)