Reese v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
675 F.3d 1277
11th Cir.2012Background
- Reese, a Florida prisoner, was convicted of first-degree murder, sexual battery with great force, and burglary with assault, and sentenced to death by the jury with a concurrent/ consecutive structure as per Florida law.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction, remanded for a reasoned death sentence explanation, and later, Reese II/III proceedings maintained the death sentence.
- During sentencing, the prosecutor argued the crime was the victim’s nightmare, discussed lack of mandatory minimums, and compared Reese to a puppy-turned-dog and to be merciful or not.
- Florida courts upheld the arguments as permissible under state and federal standards, finding no prosecutorial misconduct that violated due process.
- Reese filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); the district court denied relief but issued a COA on the prosecutorial-misconduct claim.
- The Eleventh Circuit applied AEDPA review, holding that the Florida Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law and, under de novo review, found no prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct during sentencing phase? | Reese argues closing arguments violated due process. | State Florida argues no due-process violation; Florida decisions on point are proper. | No, Florida court did not unreasonably apply federal law; no misconduct under standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (prosecutor closing argument must not deprive due process; standard applied in context of trial)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial closing argument must not infect trial with unfairness; context matters)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1987) (post-arrest silence and related questioning; not a due-process violation here)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (establishes how to evaluate clearly established federal law for AEDPA)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. _, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deferential review; showing unreasonable application required)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (applies AEDPA deference; general standards require strong showing)
- Shere v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 537 F.3d 1304 (2008) (limits of federal review when state court interprets federal law)
- Williams v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (2008) (addressing unsettled questions and AEDPA applicability)