Robert Earl Butts v. GDCP Warden
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4161
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert Earl Butts Jr. was convicted in Georgia of malice murder and related offenses and sentenced to death; he pursued state postconviction relief and then a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- Central claim: trial counsel allegedly failed to adequately investigate, develop, and present mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase; appellate counsel allegedly failed to preserve/adequately present those trial-ineffectiveness claims, forming the basis to excuse state procedural defaults.
- State courts (trial habeas court and Georgia Supreme Court via denial of CPC) found trial counsel’s mitigation investigation and strategic choice (residual-doubt focus) reasonable; state habeas court found appellate counsel deficient but concluded no prejudice.
- Federal district court denied habeas relief, applying AEDPA deference to the state-court findings; this appeal limited to whether appellate/trial counsel deficiency prejudiced Butts (i.e., whether any fairminded jurist could agree with the state court).
- The Eleventh Circuit majority (panel) affirmed: it credited the thoroughness of trial counsel’s pretrial investigation, upheld the reasonableness of the residual-doubt sentencing strategy, and concluded Butts failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome even if additional mitigating proof had been developed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Butts) | Defendant's Argument (State/Warden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/present mitigating family/background evidence | Counsel did not uncover or present significant mitigation (e.g., mother’s substance abuse, father’s mental illness, childhood neglect) and thus performed deficiently | Counsel conducted extensive records review and many interviews; mitigation experts were not routinely used locally; counsel reasonably chose not to present family witnesses who were uncooperative or unsympathetic | Denied — state court reasonably found the mitigation investigation adequate and the choice to emphasize residual doubt reasonable under Strickland/AEDPA deference |
| 2) Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/preserve trial-ineffectiveness claims (used as cause to excuse defaults) | Appellate counsel failed to conduct independent mitigation investigation and thus rendered deficient assistance, which should excuse procedural default of broader trial-ineffectiveness claims | State conceded appellate counsel was deficient but argued no prejudice because the additional mitigation would not have produced a different outcome | Denied — even assuming deficiency, state court reasonably concluded no prejudice (no reasonable probability of different result) |
| 3) Whether AEDPA deference precludes federal relief (i.e., could any fairminded jurist agree with state court) | The state-court rulings were unreasonable in light of Supreme Court precedent (Wiggins, Williams, etc.) and record evidence of powerful mitigation | State courts applied Strickland reasonably; facts here materially differ from Wiggins/Williams/Porter; AEDPA requires deference | Denied — federal court may not overturn the state court because some fairminded jurists could agree with its conclusions |
| 4) Reasonableness of strategic choice to pursue residual-doubt mitigation rather than background witnesses/mitigation expert | Strategy foreclosed more sympathetic mitigating proof and was not informed by adequate investigation; counsel should have used mitigation expert and presented family evidence | Strategy followed from a thorough investigation that revealed limited helpful mitigation, uncooperative or unsympathetic family witnesses, and local practice did not routinely use mitigation experts; residual doubt is a permissible, often effective strategy | Denied — strategy was a reasonable tactical decision following investigation; presentation supporting residual doubt was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s failure to investigate background can be deficient where counsel abandons a reasonable investigation)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference: federal habeas relief requires state decision to be unreasonable under clearly established law)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (clarifies prejudice inquiry and limits on state-court reasoning under Strickland)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (counsel ineffective for failing to examine plainly available file that the prosecution intended to use)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) (counsel’s failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence can establish prejudice)
- Sears v. Upton, 561 U.S. 945 (2010) (state court errors in applying Strickland prejudice analysis when mitigation investigation was inadequate)
- Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (deference to experienced counsel’s strategic choices and standard for assessing mitigation-strategy reasonableness)
- Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison, 834 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. en banc 2016) (treatment of state-court summary denials and § 2254(d) review)