Jackson v. Kelly, 650 F.3d 477

Background

In 2001–2002, Jackson was linked to the murder/rape of Ruth Phillips, with hairs/mDNA evidence and Jackson’s taped confession during initial police interview.
Jackson’s guilt-phase conviction included two capital murder counts and related offenses; penalty phase followed, resulting in a death sentence.
Jackson’s direct and state habeas appeals were rejected by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2006, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2007.
Jackson filed a federal habeas petition in 2004 with intent to toll via an oversized brief and later amended petition; district court granted stay and later an evidentiary hearing.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2008 and, in 2010, granted relief on several penalty-phase mitigation claims, finding ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court, holding the writ was improvidently granted and that relief should not have been granted on the mitigation and instructional-error claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the writ was improvidently granted	Jackson argues district court correctly evaluated Strickland and AEDPA standards and granted relief.	Government contends state court decisions were reasonable under AEDPA and that no relief was warranted.	Writ was improvidently granted; relief reversed.
Whether counsel’s penalty-phase mitigation omissions prejudiced the outcome	Jackson asserts failure to interview siblings and present mitigating evidence prejudiced sentencing.	Kelly asserts evidence already presented was sufficient and omissions were not prejudicial.	State court findings of no prejudice were reasonable; no Strickland prejudice shown.
Whether failure to present age/background mitigation instruction was deficient	Jackson claims lack of specific instruction denied consideration of age/background in mitigation.	Virginia court found no requirement for a particularized instruction given the record and general instruction.	No reversible error under AEDPA; no deficient performance established.
Whether the district court could rely on new evidence from a federal evidentiary hearing to assess Strickland claims	Jackson contends new evidence should be considered to evaluate mitigation Strickland claims.	Government asserts Cullen v. Pinholster bars reliance on new evidence for merits review.	Cullen bars reliance on new evidence; the court should assess based on state-court record.
Whether the statute of limitations was properly managed for the federal petition	Jackson argues tolling and extensions rendered his petition timely.	Government argues filing was time-barred absent tolling.	The petition was timely; equitable considerations supported tolling.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA review limited to record before state court; no new evidence on merits)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (great deference to state-court conclusions in AEDPA review)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (prejudice from deficient mitigation investigation requires total evidentiary view)
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1989) (requirement to consider mitigating evidence in capital sentencing)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (mandatory consideration of mitigating evidence in capital cases)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (unreasonable application standard in AEDPA context)
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1992) (juror impartiality and mitigation considerations context)
Smith v. Spisak, 130 S. Ct. 676 (U.S. 2010) (procedural default and habeas review standards)