Richard Strong v. Donald Roper, 737 F.3d 506

Strong was convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death; Missouri Supreme Court affirmed both convictions and the denial of postconviction relief; the district court denied a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; this court granted a certificate of appealability on four claims and affirms the denial of the writ.
Murders occurred October 23, 2000, after officers found Eva Washington, two-year-old Zandrea Thomas, and an infant in Strong’s apartment; Washington had been stabbed many times and displayed evidence of prior abuse; a butcher knife was found at the scene.
Strong, an African American, challenged peremptory strikes of two African American jurors under Batson; the trial court and Missouri Supreme Court upheld the strikes as race-neutral.
The penalty phase included admission of Washington’s statements about abuse to police, and the trial court admitted alleged excited utterance; Crawford v. Washington framework was later applied.
During penalty phase, defense mitigation was investigated by counsel with some witnesses; postconviction proceedings revealed additional childhood and mental-health information not fully pursued; the court evaluated Strickland standards for effectiveness.
A PowerPoint slide show during penalty closing argued depravity of mind; the Missouri Supreme Court held it did not violate due process given overwhelming guilt and mitigating evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Batson challenge to peremptory strikes	Stevenson and Bobo were struck due to race	Reasons were race-neutral and supported by voir dire	No Batson violation; reasons were not pretextual.
Admission of Washington’s statements in penalty phase	Statement was testimonial and violated Confrontation Clause	Statement was an excited utterance, not testimonial	No clearly established violation; Crawford not clearly applicable at state decision time.
Counsel’s mitigation investigation under Strickland	Counsel failed to investigate childhood/mental-health leads	Investigation was thorough; strategy to present a good-man image reasonable	Counsel’s performance reasonably investigated; not deficient under AEDPA/Strickland.
PowerPoint presentation during penalty closing	Presentation unfairly influenced jurors	Presentation relevant to depravity of mind and not a due-process violation	Not due process violation; slide show did not render trial fundamentally unfair.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 F.3d 362 (U.S. 2000) (adequacy of legal principle application under AEDPA/Strickland)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (Batson framework and race-neutral explanations; totality of circumstances)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (U.S. 2008) (pretext for Batson claims evaluated under totality of the circumstances)
Rompilla v. Be ard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (extent of reasonable mitigation investigation; Rompilla as contrast)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause; testimonial evidence)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (due-process inquiry into prosecutor’s conduct)