Scotty Garnell Morrow v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison, 886 F.3d 1138

In 1994 Scotty Morrow murdered Barbara Young and Tonya Woods and severely injured LaToya Horne; he was convicted and sentenced to death.
Trial counsel investigated mitigation by interviewing Morrow, his mother and sister, hiring an investigator, and retaining two psychologists; they did not travel to New York/New Jersey or hire a social worker or independent crime‑scene expert.
At trial Morrow testified inconsistently and performed poorly; the jury found five aggravating factors and recommended death.
Postconviction, Morrow produced new affidavits and expert testimony alleging (a) previously undiscovered childhood abuse and sexual assaults and (b) a crime‑scene expert corroborating a less‑aggravated version of events.
The Superior Court granted relief on both ineffective‑assistance claims, but the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, finding counsel’s investigation reasonable and the new evidence cumulative or unpersuasive.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA deference to the Georgia Supreme Court’s determinations that counsel was not deficient and that any omissions were not prejudicial under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was deficient for failing to uncover additional childhood mitigation (sexual abuse, beatings, bullying)	Morrow: counsel should have obtained school records, interviewed New York/New Jersey witnesses, sent investigator out of state, and retained a social worker to find substantial mitigating evidence	State: counsel reasonably relied on extensive interviews of Morrow and immediate family, used an investigator and psychologists, and had no reason to believe material abuse was being concealed	Held: No deficiency. Georgia Supreme Court reasonably found counsel’s investigation adequate and reliance on Morrow/family reasonable under Strickland and AEDPA deference
Whether counsel’s failure to retain an independent crime‑scene expert prejudiced Morrow	Morrow: a neutral expert would have corroborated his account, rebutted aggravating details, and bolstered his credibility to sway at least one juror	State: the proffered expert’s opinions were cumulative of trial evidence (including surviving victim’s testimony and state expert testimony) and would not alter the balance of aggravating vs mitigating evidence	Held: No prejudice. Georgia Supreme Court reasonably found the expert evidence cumulative/weak and unlikely to change sentencing outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigating evidence)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (counsel performance standard under Strickland)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (duty to investigate available mitigating records)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference to state‑court decisions)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits on federal habeas review and consideration of cumulative/duplicative evidence)
Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4 (reasonableness of counsel’s mitigation investigation scope)