Sowell v. Anderson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22800

Sowell was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death by a three-judge panel in 1983; mitigation focused on his adult good deeds rather than a full childhood background.
Court-appointed mental health reports noted a severely impoverished and abusive childhood but defense counsel did not interview family or fully develop that background.
District court granted a conditional habeas writ on the penalty-phase ineffective-assistance claim, finding defense counsel’s investigation deficient and prejudicial.
Sowell’s direct appeal and state post-conviction relief were unsuccessful; petition for federal habeas relief was filed in 1994, with pre-AEDPA review applying.
The Sixth Circuit conducted an independent federal review, upholding some findings but ultimately reversing on penalty-phase IAC and denying other grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Penalty-phase IAC	Sowell's lawyers failed to interview family and follow leads from expert reports.	Counsel's strategy emphasizing adult good works was reasonable and investigation was adequate.	Relief granted: deficient investigation and prejudice established.
Brady suppression	Prosecutors suppressed Perrin statement that could cast doubt on guilt.	Perrin statement not material and not likely to change outcome.	No Brady violation; no reasonable probability of different result.
Sufficiency of evidence	Evidence did not prove prior calculation and design.	Evidence supported prior calculation and design beyond a reasonable doubt.	Sufficient evidence to convict of aggravated murder with prior calculation and design.
Guilt-phase IAC	Counsel deficient for not interviewing witnesses, calling Perrin, cross-examining Edwards, and evidentiary objections.	No prejudice or deficient performance established; trial strategy acceptable.	No reversible error; no ineffective assistance shown for guilt phase.

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 F.3d 510 (2003) (requirement to follow up on leads in background investigation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard and prejudice analysis)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (mitigation evidence relevance to culpability)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (abject poverty and abuse evidence in mitigation)
Sears v. Upton, 130 S. Ct. 3259 (2010) (mitigation strategy and potential risks of harmful tunneling)
Porter v. McCollum, 133 S. Ct. 2239 (2013) (importance of following up on mental-health and family background leads)
Belmontes v. Belmontes, 130 S. Ct. 383 (2009) (consideration of mitigating evidence and prior wrongdoing)
Goodwin v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 301 (2011) (failure to present childhood abuse and privation evidence prejudicial)
Harries v. Bell, 417 F.3d 631 (2005) (abusive childhood evidence and prejudice findings)
Wood v. Allen, 130 S. Ct. 841 (2010) (limitations on evaluating strategic choices when evidence is complicated)