United States v. Chadrick Fulks, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13016

Fulks pleaded guilty to eight counts in the District of South Carolina and was sentenced to death on Counts One and Two (carjacking resulting in death and kidnapping resulting in death).
The district court imposed sentence December 20, 2004; this court previously affirmed on direct appeal in United States v. Fulks, 454 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2006).
Fulks filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion asserting thirty-three claims; the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued an exhaustive ruling denying most claims but granting a certificate of appealability for Claims 1–29 and 33.
The instant § 2255 appeal challenges ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on direct appeal, including: (a) the FBI statement and plea strategy; (b) voir dire and juror issues; (c) a mitigation instruction; (d) the handling of Basham’s deer statement and related prosecutorial arguments.
The panel reviews de novo the district court’s legal conclusions, with factual findings reviewed for clear error.
The government’s theory tied Fulks and Basham as equally culpable, with the same core facts of Donovan’s murder shaping both trials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance re: FBI statement and plea strategy	Counsel’s strategy to have Fulks speak to the FBI and plead guilty yielded no benefit and prejudiced sentencing.	Counsel reasonably used the statement and plea as warranted by the circumstances to achieve mitigation and avoid death.	No prejudice; strategy reasonable and not outcome-determinative.
Effectiveness of voir dire and juror selection	Counsel erred in voir dire and seating hostile jurors, increasing death-sentence risk.	District court properly assessed voir dire; no constitutional error or bias affecting outcome.	No Strickland prejudice; jury qualified and no unreasonable conduct.
Mitigation instruction improper two-step process	Two-step mitigation instruction violated Eddings/Lockett by curtailing consideration of mitigating evidence.	Instruction properly allowed consideration of mitigating factors without forcing weighting; no error.	No ineffective-assistance prejudice; instruction did not bar mitigation review.
Due process: Basham deer statement and cross-trial consistency	Government’s use of inconsistent theories across Basham and Fulks trials violated due process.	Prosecutorial theory was harmonized; inconsistencies were tangential and did not undermine fairness.	No due process violation; trials viewed in context support a fair result.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice required for § 2255 relief)
Tice v. Johnson, 647 F.3d 87 (4th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness under Strickland in collateral review)
Elmore v. Ozmint, 661 F.3d 783 (4th Cir. 2011) (totality of evidence and prejudice in Strickland analysis)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (probability of different outcome under prejudice prong)
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1992) (mitigation and juror considerations in capital sentencing)
United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2009) (co-defendant trials and proportionality of accountability)
Higgs v. United States, 353 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2003) (consistent core theories across related trials and due process)
United States v. Fulks, 454 F.3d 410 (4th Cir. 2006) (direct-appeal precedents on juror bias and error review)
Smith v. Spisak, 130 S. Ct. 676 (U.S. 2010) (prejudice standard in collateral review under Strickland)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (constitutional right to a fair jury and potential reaction to voir dire)
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1992) (mitigating evidence and death-qualification considerations)
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (mitigation must be considered in capital sentencing)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (no limit on mitigating evidence; due process safeguard)
United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2003) (core theories; consistency across cases)