Showers v. Beard
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6217
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- 1994 jury convicted Showers of first degree murder; death by lethal oral morphine (Roxanol) allegedly masked by a substance.
- Commonwealth relied on circumstantial evidence and Dr. Mihalakis’s testimony about masking Roxanol.
- PCRA petition claimed trial counsel failed to call a rebuttal expert and appellate counsel failed to raise it on appeal.
- At PCRA, Dr. Wecht testified the masking/ingestion could not occur surreptitiously and suicide was likely.
- Superior Court affirmed PCRA denial; dissent criticized failure to call rebuttal expert; district court granted habeas relief for new trial.
- This Court reviews AEDPA decisions de novo while giving deference to state court findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not hiring a rebuttal expert | Showers | Commonwealth | Yes; deficient performance under Strickland |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the trial-counsel issue on direct appeal | Showers | Commonwealth | Yes; prejudice shown due to failure to raise a clearly stronger issue |
| Whether the state court's application of Strickland under AEDPA was reasonable | Showers | Commonwealth | Unreasonable application; habeas relief warranted |
| Effect of Richter on the Strickland review in habeas cases | Showers | Commonwealth | Richter does not foreclose review; circumstances require relief |
| Whether the record supports a new-trial remedy rather than other relief | Showers | Commonwealth | New trial affirmed; remand denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (attorney duty to investigate relevant evidence; failure can be prejudicial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Richter v. Harrington, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (reconsideration of Strickland under AEDPA; deferential review; why hindsight should not control)
- Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (U.S. 2009) (habeas prejudice standard applied to mental-health mitigation evidence)
- Hummel v. Rosemeyer, 564 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2009) (ABA guidelines as informative standards for counsel performance)
- Duncan v. Ornoski, 528 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2008) (importance of expert testimony when defense lacks specialized knowledge)