Leon Winston v. Eddie Pearson, 683 F.3d 489

Winston was convicted of capital murder in Virginia and sentenced to death following a jury verdict and court’s accordance with the jury’s recommendation.
Winston raised Atkins/mental retardation-based claims; the Virginia Supreme Court denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing and rejected Atkins relief.
In federal court, the district court granted an evidentiary hearing to probe ineffective assistance at sentencing, then denied relief after considering state-record limits.
On appeal, we vacated in part, instructing de novo review on the Atkins claim and allowing consideration of new evidence from the federal hearing.
On remand, the district court granted habeas relief, ordering a retrial on mental retardation or resentence consistent with Virginia law; the Commonwealth appealed.
The court ultimately reaffirmed de novo review for the Atkins claim, held defense counsel deficient and prejudicial, and affirmed habeas relief with remedy guidance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Atkins claim is reviewed de novo or under AEDPA	Winston: de novo; new evidence admissible under Winston I.	Commonwealth: Pinholster/AEDPA deference should apply.	De novo review; AEDPA(d) does not apply to this claim.
Whether the Virginia Supreme Court adjudicated the Atkins claim on the merits	Winston: not adjudicated on the merits; law of the case invalidates deference.	Commonwealth: Virginia decision constitutes adjudication on the merits.	Virginia did not adjudicate on the merits; de novo review appropriate.
Standard for assessing ineffective assistance at sentencing	Winston: Strickland standard; failure to investigate records prejudiced outcome.	Commonwealth: performance not deficient; record reviewed by experts supports decision.	Strickland applied; deficient performance prejudiced sentencing.
Did counsel's failure to review school records and consider IQ/adaptive functioning violate duties	Omissions denied Winston a proper Atkins defense.	Omissions insufficient to establish prejudice.	Yes; deficient performance prejudiced; reasonable probability of different outcome.
Appropriate remedy after Atkins relief	Winston seeks full resentencing retrial.	Remedy should align with state law; not a full new sentencing but a remedy consistent with Atkins relief.	Remedy properly determined; cross-appeal moot; full resentencing not required beyond remedy consistent with state law.

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (death penalty barred for mental retardation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Pinholster v. Ammons, 131 S. Ct. 1398 (S. Ct. 2011) (adjudicated-on-the-merits requirement; record-before-state-court rule)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (adjudication-on-the-merits, and deference under AEDPA)
Winston v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2010) (law-of-the-case framework for Winston I)
Richardson v. Branker, 668 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2012) (fits within Winston I framework on deference and evidentiary development)