Sockwell v. Hamm (DEATH PENALTY), 2:13-cv-00913

Background

In 1988 Isaiah Harris, a Montgomery County deputy, was shot; Michael Sockwell was convicted of capital murder (pecuniary gain) after co-defendants and witnesses implicated him and after he gave inculpatory statements. Sockwell was sentenced to death despite a 7–5 jury recommendation for life. Convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
Sockwell filed a Rule 32 petition (postconviction) and later a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising five claims challenging jury selection (Batson), the trial court’s treatment of a defense witness invoking the Fifth, Confrontation Clause challenges to references to non‑testifying codefendants, the sentencing court’s reliance on extra‑record material in a sentencing order, and an Atkins claim (intellectual disability).
The Alabama Supreme Court (ASC) issued a reasoned opinion on the Batson claim and summarily denied the other direct‑appeal claims; the Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) addressed other proceedings including the Rule 32 Atkins claim. The federal district court reviewed the claims under AEDPA standards and procedural‑default law.
The district court held Claims Two (witness invoking Fifth) and Four (extra‑record sentencing material) were not procedurally defaulted because the ASC had actually considered them on certiorari, and therefore evaluated all meritorious claims under § 2254(d).
Applying AEDPA deference and harmless‑error standards (including Chapman and Brecht), the court denied relief on all five claims but granted a certificate of appealability solely on the Batson challenge to the strike of veniremember Eric Davis.

Issues

Issue	Sockwell’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
1. Batson challenge to prosecutor’s strike of Eric Davis	Brooks mentioned Davis’s race and compared Davis’s race to Sockwell’s; Sockwell argued this showed purposeful racial discrimination and pretext	State asserted race‑neutral reasons (vagueness about pretrial publicity, age/appearance) and trial court credibility findings should stand	Denied — ASC’s factual view that race mention was descriptive and that race‑neutral reasons were credible was not unreasonable under AEDPA; CA granted COA only on this issue
2. Right to present witness vs. witness’s Fifth Amendment claim (Louise Harris)	Trial court failed to inquire whether Harris’s Fifth invocation was legitimate; exclusion deprived compulsory‑process right	State noted defense requested Harris be called and then acquiesced when she invoked Fifth; court reasonably could deem inquiry futile; any error harmless	Denied — no clearly established Supreme Court rule compelled a different result; any error harmless under Chapman/Brecht
3. Confrontation Clause — prosecutor’s rebuttal references to non‑testifying codefendants’ statements	Repeated references to McCarter/Hood statements violated defendant’s right to confront witnesses	State argued the jury had multiple other sources pointing to guilt (Patterson, petitioner’s statement, Gilmore), objections were sustained and curative instruction given	Denied — ACCA’s harmless‑error analysis was not unreasonable; any Confrontation error harmless under Brecht
4. Sentencing court’s use of extra‑record material (sentencing order copied from co‑defendant’s order)	Sentencing order contained inflammatory facts from Louise Harris’s trial not in Sockwell’s record; Gardner prohibits secret or non‑record information influencing death sentences	State argued the sentencing order’s ultimate aggravating‑mitigating weighing rested on record evidence (pecuniary‑gain aggravator); extraneous language was scrivener error and harmless	Denied — any Gardner error was harmless under Brecht; extraneous Harris details were not relevant to Sockwell’s character and did not substantially sway the sentence
5. Atkins claim (intellectual disability)	Sockwell alleged low IQ and adaptive deficits; sought relief from death sentence	State argued Rule 32 petition failed to plead sufficient factual support for Perkins/Atkins criteria; ACCA dismissed for insufficient pleading	Denied — ACCA reasonably held the Rule 32 pleading was conclusory and insufficient under state pleading rules; AEDPA deference bars relief and no evidentiary hearing granted

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory challenges may not be exercised on the basis of race; three‑step framework for evaluating claims)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (Sixth Amendment compulsory‑process right protects the right to present relevant witnesses)
Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951) (court must assess whether a witness’s invocation of the Fifth is reasonable; witness’s say‑so is not dispositive)
Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965) (reading a non‑testifying codefendant’s statement to jury while the codefendant invoked the Fifth can violate the Confrontation Clause)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (hearsay admissible against an absent declarant only if declarant unavailable and statement bears adequate indicia of reliability)
Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986) (use of a non‑testifying codefendant’s confession against co‑defendant implicates Confrontation and reliability requirements)
Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (Eighth Amendment prohibits sentencing procedures that permit consideration of undisclosed, secret information relevant to the offender’s character or record)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled offenders; states may develop assessment standards)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA requires deference to state court decisions unless no fair‑minded jurist could agree)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas relief for constitutional error requires showing the error had substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict)