Raleigh v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12036
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 1994 Bobby Allen Raleigh and cousin Domingo Figueroa shot and beat two men; Raleigh pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and the State sought death sentences at separate penalty proceedings.
- At Raleigh’s penalty phase the defense, during cross-examination, elicited portions of a taped statement by Figueroa; the State later played the entire tape for the jury without objection, and the jury recommended death.
- At Figueroa’s subsequent trial the State introduced testimony that Figueroa told his uncle he had killed one victim and argued Figueroa had formed intent to kill; this raised questions about consistency between prosecutorial positions in the two proceedings.
- Raleigh’s post-conviction claims included (1) Giglio/false-evidence due process claim about the taped statement; (2) inconsistent-theories claim (reliability of capital sentence); (3) ineffective-assistance claims for defense counsel’s decision to open the door to the tape and for inadequate preparation of mitigation expert Dr. Upson; and (4) a procedurally defaulted claim that counsel failed to call Figueroa’s uncle.
- Florida state courts denied relief on the merits for the exhausted claims; the federal district court and this court (applying AEDPA deference) affirmed, rejecting Raleigh’s federal habeas petition and denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State knowingly presented false evidence (Giglio) by playing Figueroa’s taped statement | Raleigh: tape falsely implicated him in both killings and State knew it, violating due process | State/Florida Ct: record does not show the tape was false or that prosecutors knowingly presented false evidence | Held: Denied — state court’s factual finding that evidence was not knowingly false was reasonable and Giglio standard applied correctly |
| Whether prosecutorial inconsistency between Raleigh’s penalty phase and Figueroa’s trial requires relief (reliability/Eighth or Due Process) | Raleigh: State argued Raleigh was principal at his penalty phase then advanced a different theory at co-defendant’s trial, undermining sentence reliability | State/Florida Ct: arguments in both proceedings were materially consistent (both implicated both men) and any stray remarks did not change that | Held: Denied — no unreasonable factual finding and no clearly established Supreme Court rule bars inconsistent theories in this context |
| Whether counsel were ineffective for opening the door to admission of Figueroa’s taped statement | Raleigh: counsel erred by eliciting and thereby admitting harmful tape | State/Florida Ct: counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to admit tape to avoid uncontrolled live testimony from Figueroa and to support mitigation themes | Held: Denied — counsel’s tactic was within the wide range of reasonable professional judgment; state court’s conclusion reasonable under Strickland/AEDPA |
| Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to adequately prepare mitigation expert Dr. Upson | Raleigh: better preparation (more records, tests, DSM diagnosis) would have produced materially stronger mitigation testimony and affected sentencing | State/Florida Ct: even assuming some preparation gaps, Raleigh failed to show prejudice — additional information would not have materially changed expert testimony or outcome | Held: Denied — prejudice not shown; state court’s Strickland analysis was reasonable under AEDPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor’s knowing use of false testimony infringes due process)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecutor must correct testimony known to be false)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (state must provide access to psychiatric assistance when sanity is likely a significant factor)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" of Supreme Court precedent)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (double deference when Strickland and AEDPA apply)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) (prejudice inquiry in capital mitigation context)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005) (remand issue and discussion about prosecutorial consistency; concurrence discussed possible concerns with inconsistent state positions)
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (capital sentencing reliability concerns)