William Morva v. David Zook
821 F.3d 517
4th Cir.2016Background
- In August 2006 William Morva escaped from custody during a hospital visit, killed hospital security guard Derrick McFarland and, the next day, Officer Eric Sutphin; he was convicted of multiple counts including three capital murders and sentenced to death.
- At sentencing Morva sought a state-funded prison-risk-assessment (nonpsychiatric) expert (Dr. Cunningham); the circuit court denied appointment and the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed.
- The trial court did appoint and Morva used state-funded mental-health experts (Drs. Cohen, Bender, Hagan), who diagnosed schizotypal personality disorder but did not find evidence of an extreme mental disturbance at the time of the offenses.
- Morva raised (1) an AEDPA challenge to the denial of the prison-risk-assessment expert, (2) three related Strickland ineffective-assistance claims about investigation/presentation of mitigation and assistance to experts, and (3) a procedurally defaulted claim that counsel ineffectively stipulated at guilt phase that Morva was a prisoner in lawful custody.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief: it held the Virginia Supreme Court reasonably applied federal law in denying the nonpsychiatric expert, denied Strickland relief under AEDPA deference for the mitigation claims, and found the stipulation claim insubstantial under Martinez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to state-funded nonpsychiatric prison-risk-assessment expert | Morva: due process/Eighth Amendment required appointment to rebut future-dangerousness and present mitigation | Commonwealth/Virginia: no clearly established federal right to state-funded nonpsychiatric expert; Husske particularized-need test controls | Denied — Virginia court reasonably applied federal law; no Supreme Court precedent establishes such right and Morva failed to show particularized need |
| Ineffective assistance — investigation into family/mental-health history | Morva: counsel failed to sufficiently investigate multigenerational family history and omitted useful witnesses/records | Commonwealth: counsel conducted extensive mitigation investigation, hired mitigation specialist, interviewed family, and provided ample material to experts; omissions were strategic or cumulative | Denied — state court’s finding of no deficient performance was reasonable under Strickland and AEDPA |
| Ineffective assistance — assistance to and presentation of mental-health experts | Morva: counsel failed to provide experts all available records and contacts that might support a more serious diagnosis | Commonwealth: experts had extensive materials and interviews; additional materials were cumulative and would not have changed diagnoses or sentencing | Denied — no reasonable probability of different diagnosis or sentence; prejudice not shown |
| Ineffective assistance — stipulation that defendant was a prisoner in custody (guilt phase) | Morva: stipulation conceded element of capital murder tied to being a prisoner, preventing acquittal on that count | Commonwealth: stipulation matched provable facts; legal status as prisoner can exist despite physical absence; jury instruction defined "prisoner confined" appropriately | Procedurally defaulted and insubstantial under Martinez — counsel’s stipulation was a reasonable strategic choice and did not prejudice the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (indigent defendant entitled to state-funded psychiatrist when sanity is likely significant at trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (scope of mitigation investigation required under Strickland)
- Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (exclusion of relevant mitigating evidence on jail behavior violated right to present mitigation)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (due process requires informing jury of parole ineligibility when future dangerousness is at issue)
- Woods v. Donald, 135 S. Ct. 1372 (AEDPA: state courts get broad leeway where precise contours of right are unclear)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference: state-court decisions must be given the benefit of the doubt)
- Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (legal status as prisoner can satisfy "prisoner confined" element despite physical absence)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (sentencer must consider mitigating evidence but states may exclude irrelevant evidence)