Littlejohn v. Royal, 875 F.3d 548

Background

Emmanuel Littlejohn was convicted of first-degree murder in Oklahoma and resentenced to death after an earlier sentencing was vacated; state postconviction relief failed and he filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Littlejohn’s federal ineffective-assistance claim alleged trial counsel (James Rowan) failed to investigate/present mitigating evidence of organic brain damage arising from prenatal/perinatal insults tied to his mother’s substance use.
On initial appeal (Littlejohn I), the Tenth Circuit found the claim potentially meritorious based on a psychiatrist’s declaration (Dr. Saint Martin) and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to develop the record and assess prejudice under Strickland.
After an evidentiary hearing, Dr. Saint Martin refined his diagnosis to ADD and an impulse-control disorder; the district court denied relief, finding the evidence weak and potentially open to damaging rebuttal.
The Tenth Circuit (on remand appeal) applied de novo review of mixed legal/factual issues and affirmed, concluding Littlejohn failed to show Strickland prejudice and that cumulative error did not render the resentencing fundamentally unfair.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not investigating/presenting organic brain damage mitigation	Rowan failed to investigate and present Dr. Saint Martin–style organic brain evidence that likely would have led at least one juror to vote life	The evidence (as developed) was limited to ADD and impulse-control disorder, weak mitigation and likely susceptible to harmful rebuttal	No ineffective assistance—Littlejohn failed to show prejudice under Strickland
Whether Dr. Saint Martin’s evidence would have substantially explained criminal history (prejudice analysis)	Organic brain disorder would offer a physiological explanation and show treatability, reducing perceived future dangerousness	The diagnoses were common, of limited explanatory value, and offered uncertain treatability; could underscore antisocial traits and invite aggravating rebuttal	The court held the evidence did not substantially explain his deviance and was not likely to change outcome
Whether additional state-court errors (late notice of Meers testimony; Confrontation Clause issues) were prejudicial	The late notice and admission of prior-trial testimony harmed resentencing fairness and should be weighed cumulatively	Any notice deficiency was remedied by three days to prepare and effective rebuttal; prior-trial cross-examination and other evidence reduced Confrontation error impact	Individually and cumulatively these errors were not shown to have substantial and injurious effect under Brecht/O’Neal
Whether cumulative errors warrant relief despite each being harmless	The combination of errors (counsel, notice, Confrontation) produced synergistic prejudice making resentencing unfair	Even assuming modest prejudice from each, their aggregate does not produce grave doubt given strong aggravation and weak omitted mitigation	No cumulative-error relief; aggregate effect insufficient to undermine fundamental fairness

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes competent counsel and prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
Littlejohn v. Trammell, 704 F.3d 817 (10th Cir. 2013) (earlier remand holding that Saint Martin’s declaration warranted evidentiary development)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (prejudice standard and importance of reasonable mitigation investigation)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (counsel’s failure to investigate mitigation where multiple strong mitigating facts existed)
Hooks v. Workman, 689 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2012) (reweighing aggravation against total mitigating evidence in prejudice analysis)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (Brecht standard for substantial and injurious effect on verdict in habeas review)
Gilson v. Sirmons, 520 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (mitigation evidence can be double-edged and sometimes aggravating)
Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2003) (cumulative-error doctrine and need for synergistic effect)
Wackerly v. Workman, 580 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009) (ADD evidence often offers little qualitative mitigation)