Melvin Newman v. Rick Harrington, 726 F.3d 921

Background

Melvin Newman, arrested at 16 for first-degree murder, was tried in 2002, convicted, and sentenced to 47 years; direct appeal affirmed.
Trial counsel Michael Johnson received a stack of educational/psychological records from Newman’s mother indicating long‑standing cognitive deficits (IQ in the 50s–60s, severe reading deficiencies, Social Security finding of mental retardation).
At trial Newman gave only brief, often nonresponsive answers during colloquies about the right to testify and a jury instruction, and trial counsel did not request a fitness/competency hearing.
In state post‑conviction proceedings Newman submitted extensive evidence and an expert (Dr. Antoinette Kavanaugh) opining he was mentally retarded and unfit to stand trial; the Illinois appellate court denied relief, finding no bona fide doubt as to fitness.
On federal habeas, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, credited Kavanaugh over the State’s expert, found counsel’s failure to investigate and to seek a fitness hearing deficient and prejudicial (reasonable probability Newman would have been found unfit), and granted habeas relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate fitness and request a competency hearing	Newman: Johnson ignored abundant records and obvious deficits; investigation would have shown bona fide doubt of fitness	State: Records only show low academic ability; Johnson reasonably concluded Newman was fit after consulting records and speaking with him	Held: Counsel’s failure was constitutionally deficient under Strickland; presumption of competence rebutted
Whether the Illinois appellate court unreasonably applied federal law/AEDPA in rejecting prejudice under Strickland	Newman: Appellate court disregarded Kavanaugh’s retrospective evaluation and contemporaneous records, an unreasonable application of Strickland	State: Post‑trial expert opinion (2005) is irrelevant to 2002 fitness; appellate court permissibly weighed evidence	Held: Appellate court unreasonably applied Strickland by discounting retrospective expert and ignoring weight of contemporaneous evidence
Whether Kavanaugh’s retrospective evaluation was admissible/relevant to 2002 fitness	Newman: Retrospective evaluations are appropriate where chronic deficits produce contemporaneous documentation; Kavanaugh relied on historic records and contemporaneous witnesses	State: Three‑year gap undermines relevance; risk of malingering and changed condition	Held: Retrospective evaluation was relevant and supported by contemporaneous records and witness corroboration; malingering finding unsupported
Whether Newman was prejudiced (reasonable probability of being found unfit)	Newman: Combined evidence (IQ, school records, teacher affidavits, trial demeanor, expert opinion) shows reasonable probability a hearing would find unfit	State: Low IQ alone insufficient; record supports finding of fitness; other assessments contradicted unfitness	Held: There was a reasonable probability Newman would have been found unfit; prejudice established; habeas relief appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (competency standard: factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deferential standard; unreasonable application vs. incorrect application)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal review under §2254(d) is limited to state‑court record)
Burt v. Uchtman, 422 F.3d 557 (7th Cir.) (failure to heed obvious mental‑health red flags can be deficient performance)
Mosley v. Atchison, 689 F.3d 838 (7th Cir.) (deferential review of state decisions; scope of habeas review)
Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487 (7th Cir.) (state factual determinations may be unreasonable when they ignore clear and convincing evidence)