Puiatti v. McNeil
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24369
| 11th Cir. | 2010Background
- 1983 kidnapping, robbery, and murder of Sharilyn Ritchie by Puiatti and Glock; joint confession resolved earlier inconsistencies.
- Pretrial and trial: Puiatti moved to sever; trial court denied severance; guilt and penalty phases occurred with joint penalty trial.
- Guilt phase: evidence included separate confessions and a joint confession; Bruton concerns addressed via interlocking/conflicting evidence.
- Penalty phase: mitigation from multiple experts; Glock and Puiatti received death sentences by jury after joint sentencing hearing.
- On direct appeal, state court upheld convictions and death sentences; federal district court later vacated only the death sentence for being improperly severed; Eleventh Circuit now reviews de novo under pre-AEDPA standards.
- This court reverses and remands to address remaining § 2254 claims as to the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in vacating Puiatti’s death sentence on penalty-phase severance grounds. | Puiatti argues severance was required to preserve individualized sentencing. | McNeil contends joint penalty phase did not violate Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment and allowed individualized consideration. | Reversed; severance not required; joint penalty phase permissible under precedent. |
| Whether Puiatti’s right to individualized sentencing was violated by the joint penalty phase. | Puiatti asserts joint phase prevented meaningful mitigation consideration. | McNeil argues no constitutional violation; no evidence restriction on mitigation. | No violation; joint phase compatible with Lockett-Eddings-Abdul‑Kabir framework. |
| Whether the district court complied with Clisby v. Jones requiring resolution of all habeas claims. | District court erred by not resolving all penalty-phase claims. | Clisby error acknowledged but severance issue controls disposition. | Clisby error acknowledged; the panel reaches merits of the penalty-phase severance issue on remand. |
| Whether the habeas court should address remaining federal claims under pre-AEDPA standard. | Pre-AEDPA de novo review governs factual/legal conclusions. | AEDPA standards apply prospectively; not retroactive here. | Pre-AEDPA standard governs de novo review of issues raised. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (mutually antagonistic defenses are not prejudicial per se; severance depends on prejudice and remedy)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (right to individualized sentencing and mitigation considerations)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (mitigation evidence must be considered as part of individualized sentencing)
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1989) (mitigation must be meaningfully considered in capital sentencing)
- Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (U.S. 2007) (mitigation evidence may warrant less than death; meaningful consideration required)
- Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1987) (non-testifying codefendant confession in joint trial; reliability concerns and harmless error)