John Milton Hardy v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, 684 F.3d 1066

Hardy, an Alabama inmate, was jointly charged with Sneed for capital murder during a 1993 robbery in Decatur.
Hardy moved to sever trial from Sneed on irreconcilable defenses (Hardy alibi vs. Sneed accusing Hardy of shooting).
Joint trial began in 1995; the State presented videotape evidence, testimony, and a redacted confession from Sneed; Hardy contested admissibility.
The jury found both defendants guilty; during sentencing, the court conducted two contemporaneous penalty proceedings with instructions to consider each defendant separately.
Hardy argued on appeal that joint guilt and penalty phases denied fair trial and individualized sentencing, and that prosecutorial comments on his post-Miranda silence violated due process.
The Alabama appellate courts upheld the convictions and death sentences; the federal district court denied habeas relief, leading to this appeal under AEDPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did joinder of trials violate Hardy's federal rights?	Hardy argues joint trial prejudiced him due to antagonistic defenses.	Sneed's case would taint Hardy's defense; severance required to avoid due process violation.	No reversible error; joint trial did not deny a fair trial under AEDPA.
Did joint sentencing violate Hardy's right to individualized sentencing?	Joint penalty phase prevented individualized consideration for Hardy.	Policy favors joint sentencing; jury could still decide individually with proper instructions.	No violation; Alabama Court properly concluded individualized sentencing was satisfied.
Did the prosecutor's questions/comments regarding Hardy's post-Miranda silence violate due process?	Interrogation remarks impermissibly implied silence and violated Doyle v. Ohio.	No improper comment; record shows no invocation of silence and statements were admissible.	No error; Doyle was not misapplied given the record findings.

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (mutually antagonistic defenses not per se prejudicial; abuse of Rule 14 not required)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (joint trials and instructions; cautions against prejudice in joint proceedings)
Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (prejudice in sentencing proceedings; remand where mitigating evidence not properly considered)
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (mandatory individualized consideration in capital sentencing)
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (capital sentencing must reflect personal responsibility)
Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983) (review of death penalty statutes and aggravating factors)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (prosecution cannot use defendant's silence after Miranda warnings for impeachment)
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (silence during interrogation; due process considerations in trial)