Tommy R. Pruitt v. Ron Neal, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9145

Background

In 2001 Tommy R. Pruitt shot and killed Deputy Daniel Starnes; convicted of murder and sentenced to death after jury found killing of an on-duty law-enforcement officer as an aggravator.
Before and during trial multiple IQ and adaptive-functioning tests were introduced; some early group tests and two Stanford‑Binet scores were in the intellectually disabled range, while a 2002 WAIS score was 76 (above cutoff).
Trial experts were split: defense experts (Hudson, Golden) opined intellectual disability; court-appointed and state experts (Schmedlen, Groff) rejected intellectual disability and trial court denied pretrial motion to dismiss death eligibility.
At penalty phase defense presented limited mental-health evidence (Dr. Golden testified mainly about schizotypal disorder); DOC records and later post-conviction experts diagnosed schizophrenia and testified Pruitt met statutory mitigating factors.
State post-conviction courts and the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the convictions and death sentence; dissents argued Pruitt is intellectually disabled.
On federal habeas, the Seventh Circuit concluded the state courts unreasonably found Pruitt not intellectually disabled and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate/present evidence of schizophrenia; vacated death sentence and remanded for a new penalty-phase proceeding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pruitt is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for death under Atkins	Pruitt: reliable IQ scores (childhood Lorge‑Thorndike and two Stanford‑Binet tests), adaptive deficits, and expert testimony show intellectual disability since childhood	State: test scores inconsistent; functional evidence (job applications, CDL, work history) and some expert opinion support non‑disabled finding	Court held state adjudication was objectively unreasonable; clear and convincing evidence supports intellectual disability — death sentence vacated
Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate/present schizophrenia evidence at penalty phase (Strickland)	Pruitt: counsel ignored red flags (DOC schizophrenia diagnosis, antipsychotic treatment, experts’ concerns) and failed to consult psychosis experts despite recommendation, prejudicing sentencing	State: counsel reasonably pursued intellectual‑disability strategy and presented mental‑health mitigation; alleged tactical choice	Court held counsel’s failure to investigate schizophrenia was unreasonable and prejudicial; granted conditional relief for new penalty-phase
Whether trial counsel were ineffective in investigating/presenting intellectual‑disability evidence	Pruitt: counsel failed in some respects	State: counsel did investigate and presented multiple experts and testing on intellectual disability	Court: did not find constitutionally ineffective assistance on the intellectual‑disability investigation theory (unnecessary to decide fully)
Whether prosecutorial misconduct in penalty closing and appellate counsel’s failure to raise it constituted ineffective assistance	Pruitt: prosecutor’s poem/ comparisons to notorious killers violated due process; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it	State: argument was not constitutionally harmful or was waived	Court: rejected ineffective‑assistance claim based on prosecutorial argument and appellate counsel for that claim

Key Cases Cited

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled defendants)
Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (IQ score cutoffs must account for standard error; legal determinations informed by clinical standards)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (counsel must investigate known mitigation red flags)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (failure to investigate mitigation can be objectively unreasonable)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; unreasonableness standard)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits on habeas review of state-court records under AEDPA)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (consider totality of mitigating evidence when assessing prejudice)
Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (mitigation evidence adduced in habeas may alter prejudice analysis)
McManus v. Neal, 779 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.) (discussion of Indiana statutory framework for intellectual disability)
Overstreet v. Wilson, 686 F.3d 404 (7th Cir.) (contrast where counsel presented mental‑health mitigation and court found no prejudice)