Michael D. Overstree v. Bill Wilson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14106
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Overstreet was convicted of kidnapping, rape, and murder of Kelly Eckart and received a death sentence in Indiana.
- Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the death sentence, and denied post-conviction relief on the penalty issues.
- The collateral attack was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the penalty phase only.
- The district court denied the § 2254 petition after evaluating the three alleged ineffective-assistance claims.
- The court framed the issues under Strickland and AEDPA deference, ultimately affirming on the penalty issues.
- The opinion analyzes whether trial counsel’s handling of spectator displays, plea-offer communication, and mitigation presentation were constitutionally ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spectator displays removal as a right | Overstreet argues trial counsel failed to obtain removal. | Indiana law provides no entitlement; no prejudice shown. | No prejudice; standard Strickland prejudice not met. |
| Adequacy of plea-offer communication | Counsel failed to convey the offer effectively under Frye. | Offer was communicated; defendant declined; potential prejudice uncertain. | No prejudice; Frye assumption without deciding on oral offers; trial judge would not have accepted plea. |
| Mitigating evidence presentation at sentencing | Counsel failed to present full/accurate mental-health evidence. | Counsel’s strategy within competence; state court found no prejudice. | No relief on the prejudice prong under AEDPA; the state court’s findings were not unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2006) (spectator-symbol displays not a constitutional right to removal at trial)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (duty to communicate plea offers; prejudice analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (allows guilty-plea despite contested factual basis; states may forbid Alford pleas)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (deficient investigation and deficient mitigation evidence)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (review of evidence and strategic decisions in mitigation)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (S. Ct. 2011) (AEDPA deference to state-court findings; evidence review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (AEDPA deference; unreasonable application of Strickland)