Pope v. Crews
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42467
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- Pope, on death row for 1982 first-degree murder, filed an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in 1999; after prior partial relief, the Eleventh Circuit remanded for an evidentiary penalty-phase hearing (2012) to test untested claims.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2012 and found penalty-phase ineffectiveness by trial counsel, requiring a new sentencing hearing; AEDPA standards governed review.
- The Florida Supreme Court had denied Pope’s penalty-phase claims in 1990; the record before it was limited and did not include the 2012 evidence.
- On review, the court must apply AEDPA deference to state court rulings adjudicated on the merits, and de novo review to new evidence introduced in the federal hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
- The 2012 hearing produced new evidence about Pope’s PTSD, Vietnam service, and mitigating factors that were not before the Florida Supreme Court, including expert testimony and military records.
- The court ultimately granted Pope habeas relief on the penalty-phase claim, ordering a new sentencing hearing before an untainted jury within 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s penalty-phase ruling was unreasonable under AEDPA stø § 2254(d) | Pope argues the state court unreasonably applied Strickland given the penalty-phase mitigation evidence not presented. | State contends the Florida court properly adjudicated claims and that Pinholster limits consideration to the state-court record. | Yes; the Florida Supreme Court’s decision was unreasonable under § 2254(d). |
| Whether trial counsel’s penalty-phase performance was deficient under Strickland | Pope asserts no mitigation investigation or presentation, failure to object to prosecutorial comments, and lack of strategy harmed the penalty result. | State argues any deficiency was not shown, and Weitz’s guilt-phase testimony mitigated concerns; Pope instructed not to present mitigation. | Yes; deficient performance established; lack of mitigation investigation and improper omission of mitigating evidence prejudiced Pope. |
| Whether the 2012 evidentiary hearing evidence can inform § 2254(a) de novo review after a § 2254(d) finding | New evidence should be considered to determine current constitutional violation. | States that 2254(a) requires reliance on state-court record unless new evidence falls under 2254(e)(2). | Yes; post-Pinholster evidentiary evidence may be considered in de novo review for § 2254(a). |
| Impact of prosecutorial comment about Pope’s death-preference on prejudice | Prosecutor’s comment compounded deficiency, biasing jury against mitigation evidence. | No adequate prejudice shown; mitigation evidence still limited. | Prejudice shown; comment contributed to likelihood of death verdict absent mitigation evidence. |
| Role of new evidence vs. state-court record under Pinholster and AEDPA | New evidence from 2012 should be used to assess ineffectiveness and current custody status. | AEDPA deferential review confines analysis to state-court record unless § 2254(e)(2) conditions met. | New evidence may be considered; de novo review applies for § 2254(a) determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance; duty to investigate mitigating evidence; prejudice test)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 ( Supreme Court 2011) (limits federal review to state-court record under § 2254(d); supports considering federal-evidentiary hearings)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (Supreme Court 2011) (double deference under AEDPA; framework for § 2254(d) review of Strickland claims)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2009) (mitigation evidence and its weight in capital sentencing; abuse of mitigation evidence)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (penalty-phase mitigation standards in capital cases; relevant precedent)