Smith v. Workman, 5:09-cv-00293

Background

Michael DeWayne Smith, an Oklahoma state prisoner and documented Crips gang member, was convicted in 2003 of first-degree burglary, two counts of first-degree murder, robbery with firearms, and first-degree arson; jury sentenced him to death on both murder counts and lengthy terms on other counts.
Smith gave a videotaped confession admitting the killings and describing details corroborated by crime-scene evidence and third‑party statements; key witnesses at trial included Sheena Johnson and Marcus Berry.
Smith filed a § 2254 habeas petition raising ten grounds (Brady/perjury, Atkins/mental retardation, Miranda waiver, ineffective assistance at mitigation, jury communications, Batson, joinder, prosecutorial nickname references, Ring challenge, and cumulative error).
The state courts (OCCA) affirmed on direct appeal and denied post‑conviction relief; some newly‑submitted affidavits recanting trial testimony were found untimely or not credible by state courts.
The federal district court reviewed the record, applied AEDPA deference where appropriate, denied an evidentiary hearing, and denied all habeas claims on procedural and/or merits grounds on September 16, 2014.

Issues

Issue	Smith's Argument	Trammell/State's Argument	Held
Brady / false testimony (Ground 1)	Prosecution withheld impeachment/exculpatory evidence and allowed perjured testimony (Johnson, Berry); newly‑obtained recantations show coercion and false testimony.	OCCA: most allegations were previously known or untimely; affidavits are unreliable and, even if believed, cumulative to overwhelming confession and corroboration.	Denied — many claims procedurally barred; on the merits recantations lacked credibility and were not material given the strong corroborated confession.
Atkins — mental retardation (Ground 2)	Smith is mentally retarded; IQ scores should be adjusted for Flynn Effect, making him ineligible for death.	Oklahoma statute defines MR and disbars IQ ≥76 (considering SEM); Oklahoma does not adopt Flynn adjustments; Smith’s scores (76,79) preclude MR under state law.	Denied — de novo review; under Oklahoma law Smith is not mentally retarded and Atkins does not mandate Flynn adjustments.
Miranda waiver voluntariness (Ground 3)	Waiver was not knowing/voluntary due to PCP intoxication and low intelligence; counsel ineffective for failing to develop these issues.	Videotape shows coherent, calm, competent waiver; trial judge reasonably excluded proffered expert testimony as irrelevant; additional expert reports would not have changed outcome.	Denied — OCCA’s factual findings (based on tape) are entitled to §2254(e)(1) deference; Strickland prejudice not shown.
Ineffective assistance — mitigation investigation/presentation (Ground 4)	Trial counsel failed to investigate/present evidence of organic brain damage, low intelligence, and fuller mitigation.	State: most mitigation presented; additional materials were cumulative or a "double‑edged sword"; no reasonable probability of different outcome.	Denied — OCCA reasonably applied Strickland; prejudice not established under AEDPA/Strickland double deference.
Jury communications / absence of counsel (Ground 5)	Judge answered two jury notes during guilt-stage outside presence of counsel, violating §894, Sixth Amendment, and Cronic (no-presence/presence at critical stage).	State: judge’s answers were correct; one answer reflected parties’ prior agreement to withdraw a tape exhibit; no Cronic error shown and any error harmless.	Denied — OCCA adjudicated on merits; under AEDPA reasonable application of law; not an automatic Cronic violation and no prejudice shown.

Key Cases Cited

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (state‑law procedural default bars federal habeas relief unless cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice shown)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose materially favorable evidence)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (conviction must be set aside if State knowingly allowed false testimony to go uncorrected)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (waiver of Miranda rights must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of mentally retarded persons unconstitutional)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (capital aggravating‑factor findings must be made by a jury)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (§2254(d) standards—"contrary to" or "unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (highly deferential AEDPA standard; state court decisions must be unreasonably wrong for federal relief)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (AEDPA deference and objective unreasonableness standard)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (habeas petitioner must rebut state court Batson findings by clear and convincing evidence)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (criminal defendants entitled to an in‑camera hearing on voluntariness of confession)
Cronic, United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (some denial‑of‑counsel circumstances presume prejudice)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (test for prosecutorial misconduct: conduct must so infect trial with unfairness as to deny due process)
Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 (1980) (state failure to follow its own law may implicate due process when arbitrary and shocking to judicial conscience)