Pittman v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18367

Background

In 1990 David Joseph Pittman was convicted in Florida of murdering Clarence, Barbara, and Bonnie Knowles; a jury recommended death by a 9–3 vote and the trial court imposed three death sentences.
Key guilt-phase evidence included a jailhouse informant who testified Pittman confessed, testimony that the phone line was cut, arson, and that Pittman was seen near the scene and connected to a wrecker and the burned getaway car.
Midtrial the defense sought to admit testimony from death-row inmate George Hodges that Hodges had received (and destroyed) a letter from Jessie Watson confessing to the killings with Aaron Gibbons; Watson denied ever writing such a letter.
The trial court excluded Hodges’s testimony as inadmissible hearsay; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal; on collateral review Florida again denied relief and rejected an ineffective-assistance claim after an evidentiary hearing.
On federal habeas review under AEDPA, the district court denied relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the exclusion of Hodges’s testimony did not violate the right to present a defense; and (2) counsel’s penalty-phase investigation and mitigation presentation satisfied Strickland.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of Hodges’s testimony (Watson letter) violated Pittman’s right to present a complete defense under Chambers/related precedents	Exclusion deprived Pittman of critical third‑party guilt evidence; the letter and corroborating investigation warranted a constitutional override of hearsay rules	Florida’s hearsay rule legitimately excludes unreliable out‑of‑court statements; Hodges’s story lacked trustworthiness and corroboration (Watson denied letter; Hodges had motive)	Court held exclusion did not violate Chambers; evidence lacked the "considerable assurance of reliability" required to override hearsay; Florida Supreme Court’s decision was not unreasonable under AEDPA
Whether counsel was ineffective in the penalty phase for failing to locate/present additional mitigation (childhood abuse, substance use, corroboration of sexual abuse, brain damage) under Strickland	Norgard and team failed to uncover/present available witnesses and records; additional evidence would have meaningfully strengthened mitigation and likely changed sentence	Defense undertook an extensive, months‑long mitigation investigation, presented comprehensive mitigation including expert synthesis (Dr. Dee); additional evidence was largely cumulative or potentially harmful (drug use)	Court held counsel’s performance was reasonably diligent and strategic and that Pittman failed to show prejudice; Florida Supreme Court’s Strickland ruling was not an unreasonable application of federal law

Key Cases Cited

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (hearsay exclusion may be unconstitutional where the statement bears persuasive assurances of trustworthiness and is critical to the defense)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (due process limits on evidentiary rules that arbitrarily bar defense testimony)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (state rules cannot arbitrarily exclude categories of defense witnesses)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (defendant’s right to present a meaningful defense limited by but potentially overriding state evidence rules)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (rule excluding defense third‑party guilt evidence when prosecution evidence is strong can violate right to present a defense)
Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) (limitations on statements against penal interest hearsay exception)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference standard: state‑court decision must be objectively unreasonable)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (reasonableness of mitigation investigation under Strickland)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (prejudice inquiry requires reweighing aggravating and mitigating evidence on the existing record)