Worthington v. Roper, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 176

Worthington was convicted and sentenced to death in Missouri for first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and forcible rape after pleading guilty sentencing phase; state postconviction proceedings challenged trial counsel's mitigation investigation; district court granted habeas relief on a psychological-mitigation claim, which the district court's ruling was issued on remand; Missouri Supreme Court affirmed most aspects but the federal district court reversed on some grounds; on appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed the habeas relief related to psychological mitigation but affirmed denials on other grounds; key evidence included defense and prosecution mitigation/psychological testimony, family background, and a Debler notice issue regarding uncharged misconduct testimony by a State witness; the court applied AEDPA standards and looked through to determine whether state-court adjudications were reasonable under Strickland and its progeny.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate psychological mitigation	Worthington argues trial counsel failed to investigate and present psychological mitigation.	Roper contends counsel reasonably investigated and chose a permissible strategy.	No; state court reasonably applied Strickland; adequate investigation supported decision not to pursue psychological mitigation.
Prejudice from not calling Worthington's parents as mitigation witnesses	Worthington asserts parents would have added mitigation value.	Missouri Supreme Court found testimony cumulative and not prejudicial given existing evidence.	No; evidence was cumulative and did not prejudice outcome.
Prejudice from not objecting to Charlotte Peroti's testimony under Debler	Worthington claims Debler notice violation prejudiced sentencing.	State's notice violation did not prejudice given the sentencing judge focused on statutory aggravators and nonstatutory evidence.	No; no reasonable probability of a different outcome even if notice issue were addressed.
Whether the postconviction court's factual determinations were unreasonable under AEDPA	Worthington challenges factual findings supporting lack of prejudice.	State court findings supported by record and were not unreasonable.	No; the state courts' factual findings were reasonable and supported the result.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (counsel's investigation must be reasonably thorough but avoid hindsight bias)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (failure to investigate personal history mitigating evidence was deficient)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (failure to examine easily accessible records; substantial impact on defense)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance)
Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (2009) (per curiam; emphasis on mental health and background)