Simpson v. Carpenter, 912 F.3d 542

Background

On Jan 16, 2006 Simpson followed a car from a nightclub parking lot and fired an assault rifle into it, killing Glen Palmer and Anthony Jones and wounding London Johnson; Simpson and two companions fled, switched cars, and disposed of the weapon.
At trial Simpson was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder (and related counts) and the jury recommended death; the state trial and OCCA proceedings admitted extensive aggravation (including a prior armed-robbery conviction) and mitigation (PTSD diagnosis, family testimony).
Trial court excluded Dr. Massad’s PTSD testimony at the guilt stage (allowed at sentencing); defense argued PTSD (and dissociation/intoxication) negated specific intent; prosecution used jailhouse informant Roy Collins at sentencing whose credibility was later challenged as Brady material.
Simpson pursued state direct appeal and post-conviction petitions; OCCA affirmed convictions and death sentences (struck HAC as to one victim but found no prejudice) and denied post-conviction relief; federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied by the district court.
The Tenth Circuit granted and/or considered numerous claims on habeas: exclusion of PTSD evidence (right to present defense), Brady withholding re: Collins, prosecutorial misconduct at sentencing, jury instruction limiting mitigation, sufficiency of HAC aggravator for Palmer, multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) theories, and cumulative error.
Applying AEDPA deference, the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief on all claims: it upheld exclusion of the PTSD evidence, found the Brady claim procedurally defaulted (and not materially prejudicial), rejected mitigation-instruction and prosecutorial-misconduct challenges, upheld the HAC finding as to Palmer, and denied IAC and cumulative-error relief.

Issues

Issue	Simpson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Right to present PTSD evidence at guilt stage	PTSD (alone or with intoxication) negated specific intent; exclusion violated right to present a complete defense	Oklahoma law limits such expert testimony except in insanity/intoxication contexts; Dr. Massad lacked opinion tying PTSD to lack of specific intent	OCCA decision reasonable under AEDPA; no clearly established Supreme Court law requiring admission; exclusion upheld
Brady (suppression of Collins impeachment material)	Prosecution withheld Collins video, records, and expectation of deals that impeach credibility and support prejudice at sentencing	State: claim waived in state court; evidence cumulative or not material to sentence	OCCA procedural bar upheld; petitioner cannot show prejudice/materiality—no relief; discovery/evidentiary hearing denied
Mitigation instruction and prosecutor argument	Jury instruction + prosecutor repeatedly framed mitigators as only those that reduce moral culpability, effectively precluding consideration of mitigation	State: instruction and argument did not preclude consideration; jury was properly instructed and mitigation presented	Under AEDPA, OCCA reasonably found no unconstitutional limitation; instruction accurate in context and no reasonable likelihood jurors were precluded
Prosecutorial misconduct (sentencing)	Multiple rebuttal and closing comments improperly denigrated mitigation, appealed to civic duty, and compared victims to defendant, rendering sentencing fundamentally unfair	State: comments were within latitude of argument and did not affect outcome given strong aggravating evidence	Many remarks improper, but cumulative effect not so prejudicial given overwhelming aggravation; OCCA decision reasonable
Sufficiency of HAC aggravator (Palmer)	Evidence insufficient to show "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" (conscious physical suffering)	Evidence (four wounds, conscious statements, labored breathing, autopsy) supports conscious suffering	OCCA reasonably applied Jackson standard; HAC as to Palmer supported
Ineffective assistance of counsel (investigation/presenting mitigation; failure to request 2nd-degree instruction; failures to object)	Counsel failed to develop mitigating background, preserve jury-instruction issues, and object to prosecutorial misconduct/instructions	State: much mitigation was cumulative or was already presented; requested lesser-included instruction unwarranted; no reasonable probability of different result	Under Strickland + AEDPA, OCCA reasonably found no prejudice; failure to request second-degree instruction was not deficient because evidence did not support it; other IAC claims denied
Cumulative error	Aggregation of errors deprived Simpson of fair trial/sentencing	Errors were harmless individually; cumulative effect insufficient to undermine reliability	OCCA reasonably held errors harmless in aggregate given strong evidence of guilt and aggravation; habeas relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (state-court factual findings presumed correct absent clear and convincing evidence)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (limits federal habeas review of state-court records under AEDPA)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (constitutional right to present a defense constrained by evidentiary rules)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of the evidence — rational trier of fact standard)
Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990) (prosecutorial remarks judged in context; may be permissible argument about weight of mitigation)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (unreasonable application standard under AEDPA requires that no fairminded jurist could agree)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (aggravating factors function as elements requiring jury factfinding)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (habeas relief impossible without clearly established Supreme Court precedent)