900 F.3d 1330
11th Cir.2018Background
- On October 14, 1987 a Jiffy Store clerk was shot twice and killed; a Dan Wesson .357 Magnum was later found under Jimmy Meders’ waterbed and two of the store’s bait bills were recovered from Meders’ person/house. Meders admitted taking the cash from the register.
- At trial three eyewitnesses (Harris, Arnold, Creel) placed Meders at the scene; their trial testimony differed in places from pretrial statements and police reports in the prosecutor’s file. Meders testified that Arnold shot the clerk and that he only took the money.
- Trial counsel did not introduce certain pretrial statements and police reports that corroborated Meders’ account (e.g., reports about shots fired at trucks) nor did counsel object to admission of food stamps or a citation for sale of cocaine found in Meders’ wallet.
- On direct appeal the Georgia Supreme Court remanded for a hearing on ineffective assistance (raised for first time on appeal); the trial court denied prejudice at the remand hearing and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- State habeas court later granted relief on the same ineffective-assistance claim, but the Georgia Supreme Court reversed on procedural/merits grounds. In federal habeas, the district court found counsel deficient but concluded the state court’s prejudice determination was not an unreasonable application of Strickland under AEDPA and denied relief; this appeal concerns that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use pretrial statements and police reports to impeach State witnesses | Meders: counsel’s failure to present impeachment material undermined his ability to rebut State witnesses; had it been used, a reasonable probability of a different outcome exists | State: impeachment material would not overcome overwhelming evidence tying Meders to the murder (weapon, possession of stolen bait money, admissions, inconsistent lies by Meders) | Court: State court’s finding of no Strickland prejudice was not an unreasonable application of federal law under AEDPA; denial affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of food stamps | Meders: food stamps weren’t traced to the store and should have been excluded or their probative value minimized | State: testimony linked food stamps to the robbery (witness testimony and Creel’s account); objection would have been futile | Held: Admission was reasonably supported; failure to object not prejudicial |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of a citation for sale of cocaine | Meders: citation was irrelevant and prejudicial; counsel should have objected | State: citation was never referenced at trial and other testimony independently established drug use; any objection would have had little effect | Held: No Strickland prejudice shown; citation’s admission had no material impact |
| Whether AEDPA deference bars federal relief despite asserted Strickland errors | Meders: even under AEDPA, the state court’s prejudice determination was unreasonable given the newly developed impeachment evidence | State: AEDPA requires federal courts to defer unless state ruling was objectively unreasonable; fairminded jurists could agree with state court | Held: AEDPA deference applies; because a fairminded jurist could accept the state court’s conclusion, federal habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference and high threshold for federal habeas relief)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. __ (2018) (look-through doctrine to state trial court decision)
- Virginia v. LeBlanc, 582 U.S. __ (2017) (state-court decision must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong)
- Trepal v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 684 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2012) (discussing AEDPA standard)