Harvey v. Warden, Union Correctional Institution
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 258
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Harvey, an inmate on Florida's death row, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in 1986 and pursued extensive post-conviction review for seventeen years.
- Watson, Harvey's trial counsel, conceded Harvey's guilt in opening statement, arguing lack of premeditation, which preceded a death-penalty verdict based on that guilt finding.
- In the penalty phase, the defense presented mitigation witnesses detailing Harvey's background, while the State presented aggravating factors; the jury recommended death, and the trial court imposed death sentences.
- Florida courts repeatedly addressed whether Watson's concessions and mitigation investigations were constitutionally deficient, culminating in Florida Supreme Court decisions in 1995 and 2006 regarding several ineffective-assistance claims.
- The AEDPA standard governs the federal habeas review, requiring deference to the state court's conclusions and limiting relief to instances of unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or unreasonable factual determinations.
- The Eleventh Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court's denial of Harvey's habeas petition, upholding the Florida Supreme Court's determinations on the challenged trial-counsel decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Concession of guilt in opening statement | Harvey argues Watson's concession violated Strickland and prejudiced the outcome. | Watson claims concession was a permissible trial strategy to secure mercy and that consent mattered but record supports strategy; even without consent, prejudice was not shown. | No reasonable probability of different outcome; no Strickland prejudice established under AEDPA. |
| Failure to strike biased juror Brunetti | Watson's failure to strike Brunetti or explore bias violated Strickland. | Strategy was reasonable; record supports decision to seat Brunetti to focus on life-imprisonment potential and psychological mitigation. | Florida Supreme Court's conclusion was not an unreasonable application of federal law; no prejudice shown. |
| Mitigation investigation—personal history | Watson's pretrial investigation omitted significant mitigating history; a more thorough inquiry would have altered the penalty phase. | Watson conducted a reasonable investigation; evidence supported his mitigation strategy and the State's cross-examination risk. | Florida Supreme Court's finding of reasonable investigation was not unreasonable; no AEDPA violation. |
| Mitigation investigation—mental health | Watson should have retained a psychiatrist and pursued deeper mental-health mitigation; failure prejudiced Harvey. | Watson obtained psychological input, consulted experts, and relied on testimony that did not indicate brain damage; no deficient performance. | Florida Supreme Court's decision that the investigation was reasonably thorough was not an unreasonable factual or legal determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice; strong deference to trial strategy)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (reasonableness of applying governing legal principle to facts governed by AEDPA)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (presumed prejudice only in extreme cases where counsel entirely fails to test the prosecution's case)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (distinguishes guilt-plea concessions from guilty-plea; requires Strickland prejudice analysis, not per se Cronic prejudice)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (limits on trial counsel's information neglect; duty to consult reasonable sources for mitigation)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (duty to investigate social history; failure to uncover mitigating evidence can render representation deficient)
- Nixon v. Singletary, 758 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2000) (concession of guilt without consent—per se prejudice analysis rejected; focus on prejudice under Strickland)