Terrell M. Johnson v. Secretary, Doc
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11996
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Terrell Johnson, on death row for murders in Florida (1979–1980), challenged counsel’s performance at sentencing in federal habeas proceedings.
- State courts upheld Johnson’s death sentence after a guilt phase with extensive aggravating factors and limited mitigation presented at sentencing.
- Johnson asserted trial counsel failed to investigate/present non-statutory mitigating evidence about his abusive, alcoholic background.
- An evidentiary hearing in state court revealed witnesses describing extensive childhood abuse, parental alcoholism, and long-term trauma not presented at sentencing.
- Under Strickland and AEDPA, the district and state courts denied relief on deficient-performance grounds but not on prejudice, leading to appellate review.
- Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court, holding trial counsel’s investigation deficient and that prejudice was established; ordered relief from the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s investigation of Johnson’s background was reasonable | Johnson argues counsel failed to interview readily available family witnesses and uncover extensive abuse history. | Jones contends he conducted a reasonable investigation given time and information available. | No; investigation deficient; fairminded jurists could disagree, AEDPA requires de novo review of prejudice. |
| Whether the non-statutory mitigating evidence, if presented, would have changed the outcome | Non-statutory mitigation could have swayed the sentencer given Johnson’s traumatic upbringing. | State court found even with statutory mitigating circumstances, death would remain warranted. | Prejudice shown; totality of evidence supports that presentation could have affected the sentence. |
| Whether the prejudice prong must be addressed de novo after AEDPA deference | Because the state court did not reach prejudice, the prejudice question should be reviewed de novo. | Lower court conclusions tie to Strickland and AEDPA deference; prejudice not shown. | De novo prejudice review conducted; prejudice established under Williams v. Taylor framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (establishes double deference under § 2254(d))
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (obligation to conduct thorough background investigation; prejudice prong)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (importance of background investigation for mitigation)
- Rompilla v. Beardsley, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (pre-AEDPA Strickland standard and requirement to develop record)
- Williams v. Allen, 542 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2008) (AEDPA deference and deficient investigation standards)