*3 friend, and her HULL, male and herded them Before WILSON and FARRIS,* Judges. into a bathroom. He took out Circuit them the bathroom in stages and had them
HULL, Judge: Circuit other, bind each placed but them in vari- prisoner Darryl Alabama Pierrie Hall ous rooms in the small peri- center. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 *4 odically left them unattended and would § petition U.S.C. 2254 for a writ of habeas return to ask the owner for information corpus. argument, After and oral review related to building. items After we affirm. bound, the victims were parent another came into the pay day center to her care I. BACKGROUND fees. Leak threatened her with a gun, court, In Alabama state Hall was con- and complied she with request his victed three counts of first-degree rob- victim, remaining bind the unbound and bery and four of second-degree counts then, proceeded to rape her. He kidnaping.1 He received concurrent sen- attempted rape parent other as imprisonment tences of life on each rob- well, physically assaulting her with his bery conviction twenty years’ and impris- gun, hands and using and others to dis- onment on kidnaping each conviction. robe her. He never through followed § Hall’s 2254 petition claims that his con- rape because the victim lied and said fession was not knowing and voluntary she a sexually transmitted disease and his trial counsel was ineffective. left, .... Leak eventually and the vic- tims called for help. A. Hall’s Arrest and Indictment Thomas, Hall v. 623 F.Supp.2d The charges against state Hall stem (M.D.Ala.2009) (footnote omitted). 1305-06 from his participation with Alonzo Leak in involvement, As to Hall’s the district court a robbery and kidnaping on October pointed out that no victim actually saw Hall, 1999. juveniles, Leak and both kid- Hall: “The victims testified that through- (three naped and robbed four adults wom- out the man) appeared encounter there to be en and one at the Little People’s accomplices other in the Workshop, day building a or that care center in Montgom- ery, spoke Leak accomplices, Alabama. Leak other but raped one of the no rape women and tried to one another. At witnessed another participant.” Id. at crimes, time of the Leak 17was and Hall
was shy three weeks birthday. his 16th day crimes, after police identi-
The district court fied perpetrator, summarized Leak as a Leak’s arrested and involvement as follows: took him police headquarters, ques- and * Farris, trial, Honorable Jerome jury United States Cir- acquitted rape Hall of the and Circuit, Judge cuit sitting by the Ninth charges sexual abuse but was unable to reach designation. robbery kidnaping verdict on the and charges. originally hung jury 1. Hall rape There was a at the indicted for and second robbery sexual abuse as kidnap- robbery well as trial. Hall was convicted of and kid- ing. Hall was tried naping three times. In the first at the third trial. coerced, involuntary, it and made ing was him, time Leak immediate- at which tioned knowing intelligent near waiver of Hall lived without Hall. Id. ly implicated Workshop alleged and used to People’s right to counsel. his the Little that “Hall police Leak told parents permitted present it. Id. were not to be attend committing the crimes would him that told that the officers obtained his confes- and that Hall join gang, Leak to position ploys, through “[psychological sion threats during center the attack outside the promises, fatigue physical vio- carry him on how to advice to providing lence” in violation of the Fifth and Four- Id. at 1306. out the crimes.” teenth Amendments. 17, 1999, after the days two On October suppression The state trial court held a arrest, day after Leak’s crimes and one testified, hearing. including Six witnesses officers, M.L. Ma- including Officer police father, Major, and Hall. Officer par-
jor, to Hall’s house. Id. Hall’s came Major Officer testified about his inves- Major invited into the ents home and were tigation and Leak’s and Hall’s about Major Id. Officer arrested house. Hall, implicated statements. After Leak Pri- police him to the station. brought Major Officer went Hall’s house and Major and any questioning, Officers *5 Major him. advised Hall arrested Officer read Hall both his Miranda Grant W.T. being the crimes he was arrested for state-required warning for rights and the not Hall at his house or question but did subject interrogation. Id. juveniles rights read his then. Hall’s Miranda waiving rights. those signed Hall forms present mother and father were at Hall’s robbery to the and Id. Hall confessed house and observed Hall’s arrest. crimes.2 Id. His confession kidnaping station, At Hall taken to police was audiotape. recorded on Major’s Officer office to be read his Mi- jury indicted Hall on grand An Alabama rights questioned. randa and Hall’s left first-degree robbery and three counts desk, arm was handcuffed to the which second-degree kidnaping. four counts of Major proce- Officer testified was standard pled guilty. Hall not right was free. dure. Hall’s hand Major’s Testimony Sup- B. Major any questioning, Officer Before Officer Hearing pression juvenile rights read Hall both his state and forms.3 rights adult Miranda Officer 9, 2000, to his Hall filed a motion On March confession, Hall an Major gave testified that he also audiotaped argu- suppress his (1) right rape the child has the to coun- confess to the or sexual That 2. Hall did not and, sel; in footnote abuse crimes as noted earlier 1, (2) charges pay acquitted the child is unable to supra, was of those That if lawyer parents first trial. and if the child’s or lawyer, guardian provided a have not one 11(B) Rule of the Alabama Rules of Juvenile provided; can be (in effect at the time of Hall’s ar- Procedure (3) required say That the child is not trials), provided his later for rest and anything anything says and that the child custody rights of a child who is in but has child; against may be used 11(B) questioned. provided as yet Rule been counsel, (4) parent, or That if child's follows: guardian present, then the child is not them, right with has a to communicate any- questioned about Before the child is that, necessary, means if reasonable charge thing concerning the on which the arrested, provided the child to do so. asking will be person child State, (Ala.Crim. 66 Russell v. 739 So.2d child of the fol- questions must inform the 11(B)). App.1999) (quoting R. Juv. P. As Ala. lowing rights: opportunity rights to read the forms on his own. form was dated October forms, signed Hall both confirm- Major read and indicated that Officer read the ing rights agreed he understood his to form to Hall p.m. at 5:42 The content questions. answer of the caution, of an Out abundance of Officer juvenile rights form it state made clear aloud, Major then also read and Hall also silent, right right remain signed, the rights adult Miranda form at counsel, right and a to communicate with 5:44 p.m. only difference between the his parent questioning before as follows: juvenile rights state form and the adult asking you any questions, Before I must rights Miranda form was that the adult explain you you that can remain si- form did not contain this sentence: “You lent, anything you can be say used right have the your to communicate with court, against you you can talk parent guardian questioning. before If first, lawyer to a you and that have the necessary, reasonable pro- means will be right presence to the advice and aof you Otherwise, vided for to do so.” lawyer though you even cannot afford to forms were the same. you hire If one. cannot afford to hire a trial, During Major Officer testified lawyer and want present to have one signed after Hall waiving forms during interrogation, ap- the court will juvenile state rights and his Miranda point question you. one before we If rights at p.m. p.m., 5:42 5:44 respec- you want to questions answer now be- tively, and taking taped before you you now, fore want to answer —if at p.m., Major statement 7:06 Officer you so, stop can do but answering any talked,” generally “sat there and right time. You have the to communi- Major “jotted Officer things then a few your parent cate with or guardian be- down” and went and talked to *6 supervi- his and, questioning necessary, rea- fore if Paperwork sor. was completed also in the sonable provided you means will be for intervening time. audiotaping When the to do so. began at p.m., Major 7:06 again Officer added). (Emphasis Major signed Officer juvenile read both rights the state the form to indicate that he had read this rights. adult Miranda audiotape, On the paragraph to Hall. The form also con- again said that he understood both his tained paragraph this that Hall read aloud juvenile state rights and his adult Mi- Major, to Officer Major and which Officer rights. Major randa Officer testified that him, then read stating back to Hall was Hall yes, “said juvenile sir to both his
willingly answering questions and knew rights, I because read both of them on what he doing: him, tape yes, and he said sir to his I fully foregoing understand the state- adult rights They as well. were both read ment willingly and do agree to answer confession, to him.” At the end of the questions. I understand and know what again confirmed on audiotape that he had I doing. am No promise or threats have juvenile twice been advised of his state by been made to anyone me and no rights rights and adult by Miranda Officer pressure any kind has been made Major, and that he understood them. Hall against by anyone. me also stated that no threats had been made signed Hall also paragraph below this indi- to him. audiotape of the statement cating he had juvenile read it. The state began at p.m. 7:06 and ended at p.m.4 7:26 9, 2009, January 12-15-202(b) § custody prior of the child taken questioning, into provides
Alabama Rule rights Code 11 has been rescinded. these same to a transcript
4. A taped of this statement is at- remains, The fact when his son father down. that Hall’s Major testified Officer was read Miranda rights, his he did not police to the station to come wanted not for his father. He did ask for ask did not ask to station but police at the for an attor- mother. He did not ask his during questioning.5 room in the be anybody. All ney. He didn’t ask for Hall himself Major, According to Officer was, sir, you I Do yes, said understand. be in the his father to asked for never Yes, questions now? sir. want to answer Major did not ask him. Officer room with happened. That’s all that to come in. if he wanted Hall’s father hearing, Hall’s at- suppression that he During Major later testified went Officer whether, Major at the by sitting Hall’s father torney asked Officer outside and walked home, bench, Major at his Hall’s arrest and Officer did time of present saying anything to be for the father to him. father he wanted recall Hall’s said anyone Major responded Major Neither nor else Officer Officer questioning. any or threats to Hall. present promises wanted to be but made father said he trick son, being They did not coerce or Hall into that the after the fact remains making father a statement.6 never rights, read his asked attorney: or an Major summary, In Officer read Hall his ex- ... juvenile rights p.m. [the father’s] I don’t remember at 5:42 and adult state Miranda p.m. I know he said he wanted Hall then rights act words. 5:44 therefore, I told him how to read them himself. The officers then present; be hour, Hall for a little over an questioned He came headquarters. get police appendix opinion. an to this tached as Q. you you at the When were house and Major about his interaction 5. Officer testified handcuffed him? No, father as follows: Hall and Hall’s rights with I did A. I did not have a form. rights. not read him his Q. downtown, young took the man You Q. rights you did not read his at that So correct? time? headquarters, police A. We took him No, A. sir. yes, sir. Q. go I would like to down His father said Q. say I would like to be Didn't the father you ques- *7 and be there when there you question him? there when tioned him. Is that true? headquarters on the A. The father was at present police A. And his father was rights clearly state back desk. These headquarters. The son did not ask has to ask son for for father. Q. present, in the room his to be you when handcuffed him At the house father his period, at all. He did ask taking you were him down—(cid:127) for police come to A. I advised his father to father. Q. you Did ask the father if he wanted to headquarters. Q. come in? say wanted to be father] Did he [the No, A. you questioned young I did not. when there Q. be there? The father wanted to man? No, request A. to his did not. The son has A. he father. for Q. added). young say (Emphasis man he He did not. Did go his father to with him? wanted Major, Officer Officer Grant In addition to parents. A. He said that he wanted his Q. during ques- present Hall’s arrest and Okay. tioning read and testified that Hall was his question. ... I asked him the A. He said rights juvenile rights Miranda state and adult parents come He said he wanted his signed forms. Hall did not the waiver juvenile When we read him his down. Grant did not appear be scared. Officer rights, adult Miranda he never and his request present ever to be hear Hall’s father parents because I asked asked his questioning. during Hall's him several times. during which time Hall confessed. forty-five hour, from minutes maybe to an officers then audiotaped Hall’s confession a longer little than that.” from p.m. p.m., 7:06 to 7:26 which included point, Major At one Officer came out of Major’s reading Officer second of Hall’s the interview room complaining of a head- juvenile rights state and adult Miranda ache, and Curtis Hall they asked whether rights beginning at the of the audiotape had started questioning Hall. According by and an additional confirmation Hall at Hall, Major to Curtis Officer replied, “Yes. audiotape the end of the that he twice had lying him,” He is get but we will it out of been juvenile rights read both his state Major and then Officer “turned around and adult rights. Miranda This means right quick.” and went back Curtis Hall a space minutes, within of one hour and 15 testified, “[s]till [the officers] never come Major Officer told Hall out loud times four me, and asked they tell me had started the that he a right to remain silent and a interrogation. I am sitting waiting there right to counsel and twice that he had a go in there.” Curtis Hall never entered right parent present have his before Major interview room. Officer did tell questioning. Hall rights read his too and Curtis Hall that Hall was read rights his twice said he understood According them. and understood them. Curtis Hall never Major, to Officer rights waived his saw his son at the station until Hall came confessing before request and did not out of the interview room.7 presence father’s during questioning. D. Testimony Hall’s in Suppression C. Father’s Testimony Suppression Hearing Hearing Defendant Hall also testified about the Hall, father, Curtis also testified questioning. being After put arrested and and his account differs in respects some car, into police Defendant Hall heard Major’s. from Officer When Officers Ma- his father if ask he could present be when jor and Grant came to his house and ar- being questioned. Hall was Major Officer Hall, rested Curtis Hall asked Officer Ma- told Hall’s father he could. police At the jor, you “since doing are the one all the station, before the began question- officers talking, shouldn’t me a parent as or an him, ing Hall asked about his father: attorney present be y’all get when ready said, I my where is daddy? I thought question Darryl?” Major Officer re- my daddy supposed to be here when plied, “yes, you can.” The officers took y’all questioning said, are They me. police to the station in a patrol car. worry, don’t upstairs. is Curtis Hall went on his own to police Hall testified that the officers handcuffed station. He hallway waited in a for ten to him to the desk and during threatened him *8 fifteen minutes. Major Officers Grant and the questioning: past walked him. According to Curtis Hall, they First all said, Officer read that what Major Alonzo you “We will call said, when get they we said. Then started.” Curtis Hall is this true? I stayed said, no, another twenty said, fifteen to sir. Then why minutes. He Grant are finally downstairs, went Major you lying? said, I sir, Officer I ain’t lying, I showed him to a bench promise down there. you. Cur- Y’all got wrong the one. stayed tis Hall on that bench “anywhere said, The other man stop lying, we know 7. Curtis Hall’s time estimates are consistent then taped p.m. his confession was from 7:06 timeline, with the officers’ which shows Hall p.m. to 7:26 questioned for a little over an hour and said, argued ques- know counsel that Hall’s it .... I I don’t Defense did you it, .... I home nothing go my about want to daddy,” together tion “where is with me, said, to you lying I am tired He of expressed pres- father’s to be Hall’s desire Mr. pointed He Mr. Grant. son. ent, right sufficient Hall’s were to invoke the around. He kicked came Grant present father during ques- to have his the thing it and the and turned around chair “in tioning. argued Hall’s counsel that the my squeezed real hard and clamped justice, maybe parent of ... if a interest said, you I are I don’t know what arm. years to see a of fifteen young wishes kid about, man sir. the other talking Then him, if if age, parents want to see he said, no, said, I you know did it. I we questioning, there for I think it would is be it again. He kicked it Then didn’t. asked, did, if thing he which he the same my body Everything hurt more. on my father.” where is said, you shaking. He I am tired of Ultimately, the state trial court deter- said, lying. I I don’t know children right that it was the accused’s mined said, He you talking are about. what assert, father’s, not the and the officers desk. why you lying? are He hit the Hall fa- had testified never asked for his He just jumped. like that. I Grant did ther. The state court thus denied trial again kicked it and turned it over. suppress. Hall’s motion to that dispute Hall does not Defendant his Major him both Officer twice read F. First and Second Trials juvenile rights and adult Miranda state trial, first During put on an Hall also he read rights. admits defense, time alibi to wit: that at the juvenile form and rights the state signed crimes, phone he was on the at home rights testi- Miranda form but the adult confession, friends. several As to his with them. fied he did understand that offi- police Hall testified he told in- confessing his signed the statement they to hear because cers what wanted of the he was scared volvement because was scared. they tried to tell them what officers and “keep from attack-
wanted to hear them jury was to reach verdict The unable knew what me.” Hall testified he ing robbery kidnaping charges. confession the officers say in his because trial, first counsel with- After the or five Leak’s statement to him four read replaced health reasons and was drew for times. Smedley. counsel Valerie by trial, At the second Hall renewed his E. Motion to Court’s Denial State suppress motion to which state same Suppress again again pre- court denied. Hall trial testified, Hall’s After witnesses defense, alibi that from his to wit: sented argued to the state trial court counsel p.m. 3:00 until after 6:00 approximately present right to have father Hall had crimes, day on the of the he was at p.m. police sta- during questioning at the phone several friends. home on with inquired trial court wheth- tion. state rebuttal, the first time in For State “any er counsel cases defense Terry Spidle,8 a records custodian called right a father has suggest *9 BellSouth, telephone provider. right parent.” to be there as a for exercise the spelling cy, "Spidle.” we use the Spidle’s appears also in the record 8. name "Spidel.” consisten- spelled For the sake of 1268
Spidle telephone testified that Jackson, sub- Around 5:30 p.m., Rush, while Hall’s, scriptions kept such as BellSouth there, and Rivers were the last children outgoing eighteen records of local calls for Shortly thereafter, left. a tall black male that, Spidle months.9 testified according in his late rang teens arrived and the bell. records, to BellSouth’s neither Hall nor his him, Jackson did not know but she later (whom friends Hall claimed were on the him identified as Leak. Leak asked about phone) placed any outgoing telephone calls a child. responded Jackson that the child 15, 6:00 p.m. p.m. from 3:00 on October center, did not attend the and Leak left. jury again 1999.10 The was unable to Jackson saw Leak walk across the parking reach a verdict. lot. later, A few minutes rang Leak Trial G. Third again. doorbell opened When Jackson trial, In Smedley the third Valerie again door, Leak gun. drew a Leak came inside represented Hall. Hall again renewed his Jackson, Rush, and told and Rivers to motion, suppression same which the state empty pockets their give him then- trial again court denied. The State called money. Leak took money, jewel- Rivers’s (1) (Di- these witnesses: the four victims ry, and wallet. Then Leak moved the Jackson, Rivers, ane Benson Crystal three victims into a bathroom. While he Franklin, (2) Rush), and Barbara Sargeant so, doing was Leak told stay someone to (3) Wilhoit, Ronald Major. and Officer back. Leak was not speaking to victims (1) Hall, defense called: Defendant Jackson, Rush, Rivers, or but to another (2) (3) Joseph Grady, Powell, (4) Reginald person whom Jackson did not see and thus (John seven alibi Cartas, witnesses Ann identify. could not Leak told the victims Cartas, Hall, Dwayne Quinton Armstrong, accomplices he had outside. Blocton, LaQuanda Hall, Jarvis and Bon- Leak ordered Jackson to tie up Rivers (5) Hall), nie rebuttal, Curtis Hall. In and then put Rivers in a by closet himself (1)
the State called: Officers Grant and in one of the bedrooms in daycare (2) Major, Chambers, Charles a Bell- center. Leak then ordered Rush to tie South records custodian. Because Hall up Jackson telephone with cords and attorney ineffective, claims his trial was we forced Rush and Jackson to lie in down a outline the trial evidence in detail. different bedroom than where Rivers was 1. Four Victims’ Testimony located.
The four victims recounted the crimes. p.m., Franklin, Around 6:00 Crystal parent of a daycare attendee, center ar- 15, 1999, On Jackson, October Diane pay rived to her fees. pointed gun Leak owner of People’s the Little Workshop, at Franklin and ordered her to lie down working day care center. That the hallway. Leak then ordered Rush evening at about p.m. 5:00 p.m., 5:15 Rush, Franklin into the parent Barbara of a same bedroom child where attend- ing center, closet, Rivers came to fill out paper- and he ordered Rush, work. Benson Rivers came Franklin with to tie Rush up telephone with a girlfriend. cord. Leak then told Franklin go into kept 9. incoming BellSouth records of local was after the first trial concluded and more only days. calls for (but days months) than 60 eighteen less than (the after October date Hall claimed Spidle subpoenaed testified that the State occurred). the calls May BellSouth for the records in which *10 and the heard point, Leak one victims cabinets take her clothes off. hallway and the hallway.11 in the Jackson raped Franklin and in the kitchen. Jack- opening shutting Rivers raping Franklin. heard Leak being cabinets were son testified the to have sex say going he was heard Leak person and shut too for one opened quickly Franklin, Franklin and then he heard with closing and them alone. To opening to be no, screaming. “no, no” and saying also, it sounded like was “[i]t Franklin left, Franklin, re- Leak raping After person” than one when she heard the more Franklin, then turned ordered again, slamming. Rivers also testified cabinets Rush’s up, to take off tied Rush who had that he heard like there was more “noises his put Leak fondled Rush shorts. person than one there.” Rush testified say he Rivers Leak gun her. heard inside person that she believed another could Rush have sex with Rush. going was present Leak have been because would disease, he did had a told Leak she shortly them after appear very before she all The other three victims rape her. noises at end of opposite heard the a tell Leak she had disease. heard Rush center, daycare because Rush also four money and Leak then took Franklin’s slamming quickly. the cabinets heard rings wearing. was that she told During robbery, alone Leak also the now four victims Leak left periodically. and returned several times At people victims he outside. one that Leak went back Rivers testified heard a name point, “yell[ Rush Leak like ] center, of the daycare forth in the back front,” if asking question, as a up were vic- on the returning periodically check did not what but Rush remember tims, “other told them that he had time, At Rush thought name was. people Jackson testified outside.” lying Leak was and that it was “scare her periodically Leak and asked returned Rush that Leak tactic.” testified referred center, daycare such questions about people “my boys.” to the outside as machine key as “if to the Coke there was cabinets,” “what in these or of the last Leak returned what was One times Rush lock box” on her desk. was victims, Leak his told the victims name confused[,] ... also Leak “seemed testified Grady”12 “Joseph was and he lived doing. as if know what he was he didn’t Leak group Troy Highway. home on said He tell us some- go would back—he would give them he could his name because no thing go and tell us and he would back would find him. Leak also said the one tell us something again and come back and time he robbed he had kill last someone Rush, According to something different.” victims. None the victims heard just Leak as as we were.” “seemed scared during Leak use Hall’s name the crimes. time, Frank- Leak asked During this also keys. lin he took Shortly time, for her after period After a the victims real- keys, Leak them back Franklin’s threw left. They ized Leak had untied each oth- her. police. Franklin er and called testified over, she that after the incident was could they thought testified
The victims through gone tell that someone had present during was person another in her car. robbery. Leak went into the kitchen items Grady person Joseph Frank- is actual who tes- and Franklin testified that 12. an Jackson raped; up lin before Rush tied Rush she tified at trial. raped she that Franklin before testified up. was ordered to tie Rush *11 name, said, Jackson testified that Hall used to at- said Hall’s Hall say and “don’t tend the People’s Workshop, Little and that name.” Hall him told to use the name that directly day he lived behind the “Joseph Grady” care go and to back rape and center. Franklin also through Rush, knew Hall Rush.13 Leak went back rape to but friend, Cartas, a mutual disease, John him she told she had a so he did three go of them used to togeth- rape Wal-Mart her. Leak used the name “Jo- er, enjoyed playing and Hall had seph Grady” with in front of the victims and daughter. Franklin’s told them Joseph Grady Troy lived on Highway. Hall, Leak went outside with 2. Testimony Leak’s who searched Franklin’s car gave and then keys Franklin’s pled guilty Leak to back to Leak. rape robbery Leak went charges back inside for a stemming from the while and threw Frank- People’s Little keys lin’s back on the Workshop yet ground. crimes but was not sen- Later, tenced at the time Hall’s trial. Leak estimated he was at the Little Leak was imprisonment. sentenced to life People’s Workshop for about an hour and left, fifteen Leak testified that minutes. After he gave he encountered Leak De- Hall money guns fendant Hall morning on the back. Leak kept October Hall, rings. 1999. who Franklin’s acquaintance was an When Leak was arrest- ed, he Leak’s, station, former classmate was taken to approached police Leak proposition rights, with a waived his get to Leak into a admitted his involve- ment, gang. that, police Defendant Hall and told told Leak that Defendant to Hall admitted, be was with him. Leak would need to rob the People’s Little Workshop. Later that af- cross-examination, On Leak testified ternoon, about p.m., again 4:00 Hall ap- that the robbery part of the initiation proached suggested Leak and they imme- into the “Bloods” gang. Leak admitted diately day rob the care center. that although he said direct that he was Defendant Hall nervous inside gave Leak a the Little People’s .38 revolver Work- shop and instructed Leak to because it enter the was the first building, time he had give names, two false committed a robbery, and see Leak previously how the place burglarized looked on the inside. woman’s home Defendant and attacked her had a 9mm with a hammer. handgun. Leak entered outside, and returned and Hall told Leak Leak testified he went into the kitchen day rob the care center while went only during once the robbery, and he did around the side of the building. not go through the cabinets or drawers. inside,
Leak went Leak said gun, drew his he never took money and had from the victims tie one Rivers’s wallet up. only another Leak and that he took then about fifty let Defendant scene, Hall into dollars from the building although Riv- spoke with Hall ers get testified that more Leak took directions. eleven or arrived, Franklin twelve hundred Leak robbed dollars from her. his wallet. Leak day searched the care center for Sergeant 3. Wilhoit’s Testimony money. leave, Leak wanted to but Hall told Leak go back rape Franklin. Sergeant Wilhoit, Ronald a gang expert Leak did so and returned to Hall. Leak with Montgomery Department, Police It is unclear whether Hall told Leak to use to refer to Leak. "Joseph Grady" name refer Hall or *12 signed rights, and that he the waiver gang culture randa general about testified forms, testi- community. rights. and that he understood his Wilhoit the presence in local present Major gangs audiotape, that were on the Officer fied Then com- gang a associate’s juvenile and that schools Hall out loud his state again reads likely it that made more of crime mission telling that he had rights, specifically Hall in,” or be “blessed associate would the with or right parent to communicate the by the the membership, gang to full given questioning. before Hall states guardian senior members. gang’s rights these and that that he understands the form. On audio- signed he waiver the Hall, Defendant who Wilhoit interviewed Hall out Major Officer then reads tape, members of the he associated with said rights. Hall his adult Hall states gangs. Nation” loud Miranda “Crips” and “Folk rights with Leak these and that that he associated that he understands told Wilhoit suspected Hall gang members. signed and other the waiver form. he that he was associated also told Wilhoit the Hall then describes audiotape On One,” a local non-traditional “Mob with Leak on the crimes. Hall saw October gangs. as well other traditional gang, as p.m., Hall told 1999 at around 4:00 and People’s he rob the Leak that had to Little Major’s Testimony 4. Officer into Workshop get gang to and order Major that he ex- testified after Officer money go Hall the to to because needed and the crime scene took state- amined that Hall homecoming night. the dance victims, he Leak into from took ments the People’s the and Leak went Little him. Leak identi- custody and interviewed Leak to the Workshop. go Hall told Major accomplice. Hall as Officer fied his that building of the and Hall would front station, read police Hall the brought in order to look out. Be- go to back rights and adult juvenile him his state robbery, gave guns Hall Leak two fore him. rights, questioned Miranda gotteh Hall had about two months earlier inter- waiting father Hall’s outside Reginald a friend named Powell. from room, Major bring did not view but Officer day two Leak went into the care center him, not for him in Hall did ask because stayed in center times and or three right to have a juvenile’s it is thirty minutes each time. approximately during questioning, not the parent present cen- robbing day Leak care While father’s: ter, twice. Hall into the center walked father, for his Darryl If ask his doesn’t time, only into the stepped The first Hall day long can .... It’s the father ask all exited, but second center and then right[,] [s]o defendant’s juvenile minutes, stayed has for his fa- for about five Darryl physically ask time have And time I would approximately ther. at three or four feet coming his in .... did brought time, father During [H]e Hall into the center. his Because had he ask for father. get Leak tell Franklin saw father, I would have told asked his crying as Leak stood ground Franklin father to All he had to do was his come. rape not see Leak over her. Hall did for his father. ask Hall stated he exited Franklin. back in after that and did not come center Hall’s confession was audiotape yell- Hall that he heard Leak point. said At the jury. beginning for the played down,” “get ing people quiet to be statement, acknowledges Hall taped Hall telling up.” Franklin to “shut already him both Major read that Officer many peo- know how Mi- that he did not juvenile rights and his adult said his state center, actually pie cording Major, were inside the but he to Officer the officers However, maybe thought drainage 15 or 20. Hall searched the near areas and a only saw Leak and Franklin few house as as near well the area Leak’s the center. others when he entered At house and did not find guns. point, one stated that Leak called Major Officer admitted there were some name, Hall, by his first re- *13 inconsistencies between Defendant Hall’s sponse, “Joseph Grady” the name said and confession and the victims’ statements. Troy Highway he lived on
stated that Officer Major attributed the inconsisten- identity. conceal his cies to and perceiving things Hall Leak confession, During taped the Hall also differently. Major Officer that Hall stated Major that gave to Officer Leak confirmed originally people said there were 20 car, keys him the to Franklin’s and Hall in People’s Workshop, the Little but when car, around, went looked into Franklin’s pressed point on this Hall he said did not and then closed the door the car and really many know how were people there. day the Hall returned to care center. also 5. Testimony stated that he Franklin through knew Defendant Cartas, John that he Franklin were trial, At the third Hall Defendant testi- friends and he knew her well.14 fied in his own defense. On October Hall committing stated after Hall the went to and from returned crimes, ran Leak out the back door of the school LaQuanda. with his sister Hall and gave center and Hall of the money LaQuanda some pick up walked to their two stolen, they he had both then school, ran other sisters from during their toward their homes. Hall later met back they friends, walk met home one of Hall’s up gave money with Leak and the back to briefly Sunkeissa Hall Cantrell. encoun- center, Leak. from running away After the Leak, tered who said coming he was home Leak Hall Hall gave initially two checks. from school. Leak nothing said else to told the officers that he had cashed checks home, Hall. got After Hall his brother got he from Leak at a Winn Dixie but later Dwayne Hall arrived a little home after he ripped stated that the checks into small 4:00 p.m. Hall’s shortly mother arrived pieces and threw them into some water in Dwayne after Hall and fixed dinner. ditch drainage behind Winn Dixie. Cantrell called Hall to talk about the confession,
During taped his Hall also homecoming dance scheduled stated that he kill people told Leak to night p.m. afternoon, at 7:00 That Hall day they care might center because spoke also phone on the with his friends against later be witnesses Leak and Hall.15 Sweazer, Cartas, Stacie John Jarvis Bloc- Hall why did not know Leak did not kill ton, Quinton It Armstrong. was a people the center. Hall denied tell- call, multi-way phone three-way “like a ing rape Leak to women center. four-way type.” person One would hang up, put hold, someone on call told officers where he another thought located, person, guns being two were one with several of near the friends on the house, the doghouse phone at They Leak’s and one at the same time. were dis- possibly by ditch cussing arrangements near Hall’s house. Ac- for going to the statement, only 14. person During taped Hall said Franklin Major Officer day "Joseph,” referred inside the care he to Leak several as center that knew. times Major which Officer later testified was a mis statement. about, sir. And he kicked chair and said he did not know John Cartas dance. only tight my two wrist. got because he the handcuff real go if he would five, but Hall and the dance cost at me. I up Then balled his fist Then dollars he and would loan eight dollars he had Major said hit the jumped. Then Officer he into get three dollars Cartas John said, you keep lying and we table and that Hall Cartas testified dance.16 John you put county are in the with going his admission. him a dollar toward gave boys rape no bond. There is some can you. and John Cartas attend- Defendant Hall with They got a ride Car- the dance. ed cross-examination, Hall On testified mother, up at Hall’s picked who
tas’s at up left to after school sisters pick way their out p.m. 7:15 On house about p.m. about and returned home around 3:00 dance, police they saw a bunch to the called, and he p.m. spoke 4:00 Cantrell *14 Workshop. People’s at the Little cars briefly stop her had and eat dinner but night at John Cartas’s spent Hall ate for p.m. at around 4:10 He dinner house. minutes, got about and then on five later, at days police Two officers arrived Armstrong, with conference call his friends 4:00 and arrested p.m. around Hall’s house Bloeton, Cantrell, Cartas, later and and They police Hall to the station. him. took until also to Stacie Sweazer alone spoke arrived, my he could Hall “asked When got back on a p.m. about 5:00 Hall then they And said don’t be there. dad Armstrong call with and Cartas conference Hall it, upstairs.” asked worry about he’s them about spoke p.m., and with until 5:40 officers, my “I want the dad again, telling got ready then a shower and for took me. y’all questioning start in here before dance. it, worry up- he’s They about said don’t p.m., got phone on the About 6:00 Hall down and again told me to sit stairs again, and talked “[basi- with his friends my against hand desk.” handcuffed off cally got until the time we left.” Hall juvenile signed the state Hall admitted he for the phone p.m. at 7:00 left form, Miranda form and the adult rights John p.m. 7:15 when Cartas dance around not have a chance read said he did but pick up. him Hall’s house to arrived at first, explained them and that officers testimony was dif- acknowledged Hall his signed to him he them. them after prior testimony his ferent from sworn taped he made the state- Hall admitted talking phone on the began eating he ment, was but he threatened: said at and that his mother was home p.m. 3:30 statement, they I made that [B]efore sisters, his but got when he home with to me kept reading notes] their [from testimony accu- present Hall said his was I a real under- and over until had over rate. stated that he told Officers Hall I it ain’t me. standing. But told them did under- Major and Grant that he I you I said ain’t They why lying. said they rights were read stand his after at Officer lying. pointed he had And him, during taped but admitted that over and Grant came Grant. Officer confession, Hall he understood his stated why you lying, kicked chair and said that, they after left rights. Hall testified I why you rape did rob folks. to search for you’re talking the interview session I know what said don’t 10, 1999, when money paid he Hall on October got the last Hall testified he 16. Defendant twenty he Hall a check for dollars. job Days Inn and that he wrote at a local from place took on and the dance both paid Friday the crimes. The crimes before Inn, Patel, 1999. Days Jay October testified owner 1274 Hall, immediately hit Hall in the
guns, Officer Grant mouth called and someone at túne,” which house told Hall flashlight with a “about one Cartas that busy. back acknowledged previous Hall Cartas called about 15 to 20 contradicted spoke which Hall minutes later and to Hall for about sworn statement claimed 10 or minutes. to min- hit him “about or Around 20 30 that Grant four five later, p.m., got utes around 4:00 previous Hall claimed the Cartas times.” state- a conference call with Hall and another ment must have been misheard mis- friend, Cantrell, either Armstrong or typed.
which for lasted around to 40 minutes. Joseph Grady p.m., 5:00 Hall Around Cartas called Grady Joseph prior testified that to the him spoke five about to ten minutes. trial, Darryl did not know and had again called p.m., Cartas around 5:30 Grady never him before. did seen know spoke they for about 20 minutes.17 Leak, Grady formerly however. been again spoke Cartas testified he to Hall by with gang affiliated the Folk Nation known phone last one time before Cartas arrived Disciples high-ranking as the and had a at at p.m. Hall’s house around 6:40 Cartas position gang. Grady in the Leak had told testified that when he found out what had point one that Leak was also affiliated happened at People’s the Little Workshop with Folk gang Disciples. named *15 On and Hall suspect, just that was a “I was 15, 1999, day October the shocked, the crimes at you what saying, know I’m be- the People’s Workshop, Grady Little saw cause I know he couldn’t have done it Leak at school had a and conversation with he because was with us .... And we was Grady
Leak. Leak living told that he was on with phone the him.” Cartas attempt- in group planning home was to and be at ed to make statement to Major Officer night. Grady crime, the mall that never after he heard about the heard but Officer Major any Hall’s name connection with threatened to arrest him for gang. lying. When asked whether he anything knew Reginald Powell one,” about group called “mob John Car- Reginald Powell testified that he knew Hall, tas testified that and along he with grew Hall up and with him. Powell was Quinton Blocton, Armstrong, Jarvis and questioned by two detectives about Cantrell, Sunkeissa had formed a rap crimes People’s Workshop. at Little group boys.” called only “mob The activi- Powell not anything did know about the group ties engaged were playing incident and told he the detectives did not games video and rapping.
give any Hall guns. Cartas, mother, Ann Cartas’s testified got as soon as her son John Cartas 8. Seven Alibi Witnesses Defense afternoon, home that a little after 3:00 The defense then called alibi seven wit- p.m., phone got he on the with Hall and Cartas, Cartas, nesses: Ann Dwayne John picked others. Ann testified Cartas she Hall, Quinton Armstrong, Blocton, Jarvis up the phone and listened in on her son’s Hall, LaQuanda Bonnie Hall. and “at conversation least three” times —at 3:40, 4:10, John time, Cartas testified that on the after- around and 4:40. first 15, 1999, noon of only October he came home at Ann Cartas heard her son and Arm- home, p.m. around strong talking, 3:00 After he came he but the second and third (Ann telephone Cartas). 17. The on line which Cartas called name mother’s (334-281-1870) registered Hall was in his school, including Hall. Sunkeissa Cantrell. times, with ters’ phone was on the Cartas Hall at Dwayne Darryl Hall and were picked up “probably” Ann Cartas p.m. p.m., from until 6:40 when could not re- home 3:36 but she p.m., at phone 5:10 Dwayne go game. Hall to to a football As far as she left whom she heard. member their mother nearly Dwayne Hall testified knew, phone on the her son was already already and food p.m., until was home had 3:15 6:00 constantly p.m. from they on table when came phone prepared listening on she was not but Hall dinner at the Dwayne Hall to home. ate picked up Ann Cartas entire time. Hall, and mother ate in p.m. Ann table with their 6:40 to the around go dance Darryl Hall on and room. Defendant was that her son her confirmed Cartas also afternoon, phone during the but had different “rap group” had a which Hall machine, not know who he was Dwayne karaoke did They used a names. in.” to. join talking come “all kids used to LaQuanda Hall Hall’s sister testified Armstrong that he Quinton testified that, evening arriving stop after at their bus after on the phone with Hall on school, Armstrong Hall went home and then called she and 1999.18 October little again up him around 3:15 their two sisters began speaking pick left Arm- go, then back home Hall said from school and walked p.m. 4:00 again at around strong called Hall their sisters Sunkeissa Cantrell. with five min- approximately them spoke Along way, go Cantrell left p.m. 4:30 Armstrong around home, utes. Hall called con- LaQuanda siblings and her boys” that “mob Armstrong testified p.m. they until met their older tinued walk group which included rap to a referred Dwayne got Hall. Their mother brother himself, Blocton, and Hall. arrived, just they and the food home after yet LaQuanda prepared. testified testified he was Jarvis Blocton *16 again house that Hall not leave the did evening Hall the phone with on the 7:20, left the with until when he for dance 15, Hall 1999. Blocton called October Ann Cartas. John Cartas and from Blocton arrived home after sometime one p.m., at and no answered. school 3:50 mother, Hall, that Bonnie Hall’s testified later, Hall and answered. again He tried 1999, 15, came home on October she time not remember what exact Blocton did and for p.m. prepared around 4:00 dinner went to work spoke to Hall. Blocton he alone children. ate dinner in her her She night approximately at that and arrived at remained house bedroom. Hall p.m. Blocton also testified that 5:30 until got the time she home he left from a rap group as group known “mob” 7:15 or p.m. p.m. the dance at 7:20 for Cartas, himself, Armstrong, that included on in his room. phone Hall was and Hall. 9. Curtis Hall brother, Hall,
Dwayne Hall’s testified father, Hall, 15, 1999, re- he Hall’s Curtis testified evening on of October that ensuing po- garding Hall Hall’s arrest and joined Hall and his sisters after school, they in the house and up from and lice search conducted picked the sisters Hall that his Dwayne backyard. Hall testified together. home Curtis all walked gangs with and that Darryl Hall talk to son was not involved not Defendant did see Hall perfect from sis- had school attendance. way on their he anyone home stepfather, Armstrong's his Charles Hutchinson. phone at home 18. The number (334-284-3947) registered is the name only discipline problem one at school Chambers testified that BellSouth re- “running off at when Hall was the mouth.” subpoenas ceived several for call records First, in connection with Hall’s trial. Bell- 10. State’s Rebuttal 9, subpoenaed South was on May 2000 for rebuttal, In the State called Officers the records reference to Bonnie Hall’s Major. Officer (334-284-1968). Grant Grant denied telephone account kicking Hall striking chair. Officer subpoena “requested on in- information during Major question- testified that Hall’s coming 15, and outgoing calls” on October phone ing, Hall never stated was on the 1999. Chambers testified that he could anyone with at the time the crimes oc- say not whether there incoming were calls it, Hall said do initially curred. he did not 1999, 15, to the account on October be- then later he Ma- confessed. Officer at subpoena cause the time the was re- jor did believe Hall’s alibi because longer ceived there were no any records of Hall leading after had confessed and was those calls. Chambers testified as for guns officers search later calls, outgoing records, upon our “[b]ased evening, police that same were outgoing there no found” calls be- by went house Hall’s mother p.m. p.m. tween 4:00 6:00 on October police [the “ran to car which Hall was and, 1999 from residence else[,] sitting] say and said don’t anything therefore, there no were calls between 4:00 you telephone. on Then John p.m. and p.m. 6:00 from Hall Ann Car- couple came in days [Cartas] later line or tas’s Charles line. Hutchinson’s us that telling phone he was on the with Chambers testified that BellSouth also .... And [Hall] [Cartas] told me that a subpoena received “for all phone records parents him [Hall]’s told to come down including incoming and outgoing [calls]” Major there.” Officer reading denied (334-281-1870) for Ann Cartas’s account Leak’s statement to Hall before Hall con- on October again 1999. Chambers tes- fessed said Leak’s statement had not tified there no were records available of yet even been transcribed time. incoming calls for date. Chambers Major Officer threatening denied Hall. testified that there were no outgoing calls Chambers, The State also called Charles from the Cartas home the 15th: a records custodian Cham- for BellSouth. *17 Q. Let’s talk about outgoing calls department bers that testified handles from the Cartas home on 15th. subpoenas for records from BellSouth. Was outgoing there an for call 281- Chambers testified that “incoming call[] 1870 p.m. between the hours of four daily information” kept is for 60 about p.m.? and six days, while call outgoing information is A. No. that, kept “longer than somewhere Q. phone There no
range eighteen so,” was call from of months or “bill- for ing Cartas purposes” telephone in case of home num- discrepancies and complaints. Darryl ber of Chambers made no distinc- 284-1968 be- tion kept between records for tween p.m.; local calls four and six is that and records kept long for calls.19 distance correct? fact, opinion,
19. As we note later in this it outgoing regular, was of local calls. In for customers, Spidle's testimony later revealed that neither "non-measured” BellSouth re- during the second nor outgoing only trial Chambers’s testi- tained local call for records mony during factually trial days, Spidle third was ac- not 18 months as Chambers and period curate as to the retention for records at testified trial. you talking incoming Are about A. correct. A. That is outgoing calls? testified as BellSouth’s also Chambers Q. Either. in con- subpoena for records to a response If the do not find infor- Hutch- A. records account of Charles nection with Armstrong. inson, Quinton mation, say home of I that yes, at the would infor- and all requested “[a]ny subpoena period That that mation is not there for out- incoming and including phone records day, yes. for that 334-284-3947 phone number going calls day on October 15th Q. So for a whole Chambers testi- of 10-15-99.” on date subpoenas all of out of those account, there to Hutchinson’s fied that as attorney] that went over [the State’s ... calls October outgoing “some were you, nobody any of with from those calls 15th,” outgoing no there were but up phone picked their homes home. home to Hall’s from Hutchinson’s that phone made call at all whole that, other as with the testified Chambers day? avail- accounts, was no information there outgoing show no calls A. Our records any incoming for the as to calls able for those dates. account. Hutchinson Q. Okay. your records if Would show cross-examination, clari- Chambers On had been numbers disconnected? to both referring local fied that he If telephone A. number been “outgoing he said calls when long distance disconnected? that further testified calls.” Chambers Q. Yes. all kept were for call records outgoing service, even A. Yes. any type of customers with for specifically are not billed
those who would Q. people So all of these have calls. On cross-examination outgoing service, nobody active made a Smedley Chambers, Hall’s trial counsel Nobody picked up call their at all? saying out Chambers pointed phone anyone to call from twelve any outgoing no records there were o’clock— calls, multiple any of the accounts from issue, day of October the entire for a.m. Q. From twelve o’clock to—or 1999:20 midnight, that’s when twelve o’clock for Q. you’re saying is that what So start, until 11:59 15 would October day 15th an entire October up nobody picked their night, made from each no calls were any phone of those residences from residences? those phone call? Is that and made I am No, saying I am that. A. you’re saying? what we have no record of those— saying saying I am that our data shows no A. *18 days. any calls for those of made on that outgoing calls were those Q. you if have no record for But date, yes. you say you keep up with calls and you Q. That’s whether have measured that your says and letter the calls any local service or kind service or were for October 15th no calls found of service? 1999, that you saying are not of Yes. A. nobody phone made a call? 15, 1999, all of which were and count for October on redirect
20. Chambers later clarified out- long that there were three cross-examination distance calls. ac- going phone calls on Hutchinson's shown 1278 Jury’s native, Verdict
11. a motion for new Hall trial.23 ar- alia, gued, inter that his confession was Hall jury at the third trial found voluntary that not and trial counsel Smed- 1, 2001, guilty charges.21 of all On March was ley ineffective. Hall that argued at the trial court Hall to con- state sentenced third Smedley present trial failed imprisonment for current terms of life the (1) in of support sufficient evidence: Hall’s (robbery) twenty Class A felonies and alibi, by such as failing to call four alibi years’ imprisonment on the Class B felo- witnesses had who testified in Hall’s first 8, 2001, (kidnaping).22 nies March Hall On Armstrong,24 trial: Pamela appealed. day, Smedley On Sunkeissa Can- that same trell,25 McElroy,26 Gloria withdrew as Hall’s counsel. and Lea Dett- mar,27 (2) and good by of Hall’s character H. Motion New Trial for failing to call three character witnesses had at who Hall’s trial: Lin- Hall M. testified first Goggans retained Thomas as Dowe, 2, 2001, Dowe, April Gregory counsel. On da Goggans filed and Katherine or, acquittal, Hall’s motion for in alter- Scott.28 acquitted during 21. Armstrong, Hall was trial first of ton and John Cartas. Cantrell rape charges, and sexual abuse so evening. talked with Hall several that times charged only second and third trials rap group Cantrell and Hall had a called robbery kidnaping with the “Mob,” and crimes. anyone require which did not to do anything get group rap. into than other robbery, 22. For Alabama law authorizes a gang. Cantrell testified that Hall was not years years sentence between and 10 99 or 13A-5-6(a)(l); §§ life. See Ala.Code 13A-8- McElroy 26. Gloria is Sunkeissa Cantrell’s 41(c). second-degree kidnaping, For Ala- daughter mother and her testified was on the bama law authorizes a sentence of more phone p.m. with off and Hall on from 4:15 or years years. than 20 not less than 2 See p.m. up p.m. p.m. 4:30 6:00 until or 6:30 on 13A-5-6(a)(2), 13A-6-44(c). §§ Ala.Code 15, McElroy October 1999. Gloria did not testify 2001, daughter that she her or were at Goggans 23. their Since has remained Hall’s counsel, evening. including throughout McElroy cousins’ home that appeal Gloria direct § in state is also referred to in the proceed- court the federal record as "Gloria ings. McElroy Khaliq” simply Abdul or "Gloria Khaliq.” consistency, For sake we According 24. Armstrong, to Pamela her son throughout opinion refer to her this as "Glo- Quinton Armstrong phone on with McElroy.” ria during Hall and others the afternoon of Octo- they ber made several calls back and school, Lea 27. Dettmar is a teacher at Hall’s up forth until the time took she her son history and Hall was in her world class. p.m. dance at 6:45 Pamela herself talked Dettmar testified Hall inwas school on phone day with on approxi- at October that school starts at mately p.m. p.m. 3:15 or 3:30 support 7:45 a.m. Attendance records testimony her were admitted at first trial. 15, 1999,
25. On October Sunkeissa Cantrell p.m. arrived home from at school about 3:00 Linda Gregory Dowe and walking way She saw Hall Dowe testified from back they picking up neighborhood, lived in p.m. they his sisters around 3:00 years, p.m. eight knew Hall "good” 3:10 Cantrell did had a not see Hall talk with anyone walking. reputation, they any prob- else while From her cous- never had home, ins’ Cantrell lems with called Hall around 3:20 Hall. Katherine Scott testified that p.m., they night. neighbor discussed dance that she was Hall’s for four and a half *19 They phone on years were the for parents. about 20 minutes. and she knew Hall and his 4:30, again siblings Cantrell called Hall around Hall and his were a bunch "sweet of Quin- Hall, four-way children,” had a conversation with taught and she them Bible stories. years was hearing. an the Hall seventeen Hall filed adden- April On alleging, new trial five months old at that time. his motion for dum to alia, testimony was that Chambers’s inter Taffett, to Hall a According “very had keep not in did that BellSouth incorrect difficult, following time instructions.” eighteen for months. outgoing call records independently, reading he read his When fact, maintained argued, In BellSouth comprehension grade, was at the third the call records for accounts outgoing local Taffett, Reading with fifth month level. calls, the after the date of only days for comprehension level at reading his subpoena issued with- no because grade, fourth second month level. Hall calls, 60-day period in time after possible on at the lowest level a scored of would have deleted records BellSouth test, picture vocabulary learning and his to and from the involved all local calls an ability eight-year- was at the level of the time the records were telephones by and-seven-month-old child the fourth subpoenaed. Hall contended evidence test, reading On an oral his read- grade. falsity testimony was of the of Chambers’s fifth ing grade, rate was at the first month “from per- available from BellSouth level, accuracy and his rate was at the fifth to involved tele- connected sons opined fifth month level. Taffett grade, present Smedley did not phones,” but that not have abili- did the intellectual it. to or be the of ty any “mastermind leader argued that he lacked the Hall further of or even type crime to orchestrate this juvenile rights to his state capacity waive crime, type any crime.” to time he made statements counsel, Smedley, Hall’s trial also testi- “psychological psycho- or police because Smedley not feel that she fied. did testimony showed Hall lacked the metric” enough experience to handle case.30 put upon capacity pressures to resist the trial, Smedley to not Prior did interview counsel, Bell, not have His first did him. Chambers, Armstrong, Pamela or Gloria present Hall tested or such evidence Ms. Can- McElroy. Smedley believed that having sup- Hall’s statements support have trell had moved and she “didn’t counsel did not seek pressed. Hall’s During her.” the third opportunity find reopen hearing.29 the suppression trial, Smedley put all on the witnesses she theory thought help support would her Hearing Motion I. Court on State for case, and those decisions she made New Trial theory on her of the case and her based 25, 2001, the trial court April On state Hall, family, with and the discussions mo- hearing new trial conducted witnesses. Goggans At attor- hearing, tion. teachers, Price, of Hall’s tes- Vickie one represented Hall. ney Elizabeth Addison any Taffett, tified that she never had “serious” expert, testi- an education Linda Hall, with that he was not problems test- fied that she administered academic any have ing prior gang, and that he did not “lead- approximately to Hall week Hall, Smedley represented anything wrong, At time she Hall to do 30. Scott never knew truth, very good reputation years. he for practicing had a law four Prior had been "good Hall, he was a child.” representation of she had tried to her involving trials theft of two three criminal claim, specify Hall does For this "major” involving trials property, but no Bell, referring Smedley, or whether is kidnaping, robbery. rape, as crimes such both. *20 1280 witness, 1999,
ership in qualities.” Tyr- regular Another October of for a “non- Anderson, probation customer,”31 a officer with the one outgoing measured service Facility, Montgomery Youth worked with long-distance be calls would billed the in “predispositional” capacity Hall a after bill, appear customer would on their prior Hall was arrested and to his trial. incoming outgoing but records of local gathering predisposi- In for a information kept only days. calls would be 60 Af- report, people tion Anderson talked to in days, ter all the records of of local at community Hall’s school. would Mahoney calls be erased. ex- ultimately Anderson recommended to the plained, keep “We do local calls be- juvenile that go court Hall be allowed to cause there no on billing is them for a a any- home because he was not threat to regular non-measured customer.” Howev- one. er, Mahoney testified that if a customer trial, Three alibi witnesses from the first has local “measured” service and also asks Cantrell, McElroy, Gloria Sunkeissa and to their have local measured service calls Pamela Armstrong, they testified that bills, printed on telephone their the rec- given testimony would have the same incoming outgoing ords of local calls gave the third trial that they in the first kept are for 18 months. Curtis Hall and if they testify. trial had been called to Ann day Cartas both testified that on the crimes, of juror trial, they only A basic tele- from the third Letricia Long, phone that service rather “quite testified there was a lot than ser- “measured” of during confusion” deliberations about vice. telephone Long the evidence of calls. tes- Hall also filed a of of copy one that tified the evidence trial “made it subpoenas phone served on BellSouth for like any phone look it wasn’t calls going response. records and BellSouth’s in” coming day crime, out or on the of the 10, subpoena was May issued 2000. The implying guilty. However, subpoena requested production of the juror “nobody also testified that actual- following documents: ly believed” testimony Chambers’s because phone records, Any and all including any incoming said there were not or incoming phone and outgoing calls for outgoing day: calls at all that (334) number 281-1870 on date it, It was a quite lot of confusion about The account holder’s name is 10/15/99. any because it wasn’t incoming outgo- Rd., Anne Cartas of 360 Eagerton Mont- calls, it ing major and was issue in gomery, AL 36116. different teenagers homes with and that made, any
there weren’t In phone response subpoena, calls to the the BellSouth nobody actually Assistant, believed it. Compliance Patricia Tapp, re- 16, an May turned affidavit dated Later, cross-examination, juror tes- stating, “No records as described jurors tified that majority did not legal document signed are available” and Chambers, testimony believe the but letter to the Court of Montgomery still found Circuit guilty. County, May stating also dated Mahoney, Kathleen super- BellSouth part: of subpoena compliance visor at the Bell- Center, Subpoena Compliance South testi- There were no calls found for the date by telephone. Mahoney you fied provided. testified that Incoming calls are Mahoney testified that “non-measured ser- can tomers subscribe to .... The is bill sent “special billing plan usage vice” is ... cus- on the of the customer.”
1281 intelligence of sixty Matters the defendant’s for approximately only available fully There at the age the current date. and were considered days prior to suppress no calls found. on motion to and outgoing hearing were the each of trials. While an throughout the submitted Chambers’s also BellSouth literacy intelligence and are accused’s affidavits, they in which stat- Spidle’s important to be considered in factors understanding at the time it ed was their determining he intelligently whether kept trial that BellSouth they at testified voluntarily waived his constitutional for the sub- outgoing local call information confession, in- rights and made a weak eighteen period of ject accounts for illiteracy will not render tellect or alone had Spidle Both Chambers months. fact, that, of out- a confession inadmissible. in records since learned in with the connection going local calls claim, As the ineffective-trial-counsel period of kept accounts were involved that Dettmar’s the state trial court found days. also submitted only BellSouth of testimony as to Hall’s alibi defense be- Preau, Di- L. the the affidavit of James in been ing school would have cumulative Security BellSouth. Preau rector of at trial, at presented of other evidence includ- upon served subpoenas the five reviewed the of ing admission school records show- concluded for Hall’s trial and BellSouth attendance, it not ing and that would have subpoenas accounts for which the that the pertinent given been that crimes oc- ac- sought were all “flat rate” records curred after school hours. The state trial counts, had meaning that the customers court further found that additional alibi that service and not elected “measured” witnesses would have been cumulative of no on local have been data there would presented through at trial the evidence calls at incoming outgoing BellSouth ..., “Daryl alibi witnesses John [sic] subpoenas in received when BellSouth Cartas, Cartas, [sic], Ann Jarvis Blockton July of before second June Quinton Armstrong.”32 The state trial of 2000. began trial in November remaining claims of court dismissed that were based on ineffective assistance Denying Motion Court’s Order J. State experience, being lack Smedley’s of over- New For Trial worked, and lack of time. mo- state trial court denied Hall’s acknowledged The state trial court order, tion trial. In its the state for new jury Hall’s that was left with argument re- acknowledged that Taffett’s tests court regarding impression a false the existence “low intelli- vealed that Hall was day at for the phone of records BellSouth segment population.” of the As gence the two BellSouth crimes and that confession, the state challenge Hall’s who at Hall’s witnesses testified second it already stated that considered court had since filed affidavits and third trials age ruling in its intelligence and Hall’s stating testimony that trial their at trial and suppress motion to transcript, Quoting error. the trial not his confession this did render stated, “testimony from the state court inadmissible: order, Hall,” "Daryl Bonnie Hall and La- referring appears it the trial court’s In Quanda trial testified at as to Hall's referring trial the state court day alleged the crimes. Hall, brother, whereabouts on the Dwayne who the defendant's Reginald testify and Hall walked home did as an alibi testified trial Powell being by together day despite one on the crimes. witness named as from school state court. In the alibi witnesses named trial addition to *22 calls, Second, trial not did indicate there were no appeals the Alabama court con- ‘we but have no [rather that] record cluded that the trial court did err in of ” any days’ (empha- calls those denying suppress Hall’s motion to his con- those— for added). Furthermore, sis fession, the state court as the record that indicated juror found that the who testified at the admitted juve- he received both his state made it clear the hearing jury that had warnings nile and his adult Miranda warn- ignored phone the of evidence the records ings, all rights, understood of his waived Therefore, during its deliberations. Hall’s rights, spoke his and with the officers. claim that the BellSouth evidence a left appeals The court noted that Hall testified impression jury false with the was moot. presence that had asked his father’s prior making statement, but The state trial court found that oth- officers testified that he not. had The grounds er on which Hall had sought stated, appeals court “[t]he evidence of- new trial were meritless. by appellant fered conflicted with that K. Appeal: Direct Alabama Court and, therefore, by offered the State creat- of Appeals
Criminal a question ed of fact for the trial court. It is well that trial settled finding court’s appealed his convictions to Ala- of voluntariness of a confession only need bama Appeals, Court of Criminal which supported by preponderance be of the Alabama, affirmed. Hall v. State No. evidence[,] and will not be disturbed on CR-00-1180, 540, 876 So.2d 2002 WL appeal manifestly unless found to be con- 2002) 18, (Ala.Crim.App. 32598940 Oct. trary great to the weight of the evidence.” (unpublished).33 The Alabama appeals (citations Id. at 7 quotation marks (1) court addressed three issues: whether omitted). Hall was due a new trial due to Cham- (2) testimony, bers’s false whether the trial Finally, the appeals Alabama court re- court denying erred in sup- his motion to findings counted the of the trial court as to (3) press, and whether Hall received inef- Hall’s claims of ineffective trial counsel fective trial counsel. concluded, discussion, without these claims did not require reversal under
As to Chambers’s
testimony,
false
the standard set out
in Strickland v.
appeals
Alabama
court
noted
the rec-
668,
Washington,
693-94,
466 U.S.
104
ord was silent
toas whether the
error
2052, 2067-68,
(1984).
S.Ct.
was based
counsel,
proper;
trial
test35was not satisfied because
and ineffective
Strickland
(2)
vol-
that,
Hall’s confession was
whether
had concluded
un-
already
the court
into
admitted
evi-
properly
untary
Frazier,
a significant
there was not
der
testimony of
Id.
to the false
As
dence.
have
jury
that the
would
reached a
chance
Court,
Chambers,
Supreme
the Alabama
result had it heard the truth.
different
Id.
*23
Frazier,
560
Ex
562 So.2d
applying
parte
Supreme
The Alabama
Court
at 1084-85.
(Ala.1990),34
trial court’s
agreed with the
therefore,
ruling,
on
made no
whether
trial would
outcome of the
ruling that the
Smedley’s
diligence
failure to exercise due
jury
had the
heard
not have been different
discovering
falsity
the
of Chambers’s
regarding
telephone
facts
the correct
amounted to ineffective
testimony
assis-
The Alabama Su-
records.
Id.
1083.
did it rule
Hall’s other
tance. Nor
on
that Hall
preme Court also concluded
assistance,
of ineffective
as it
claims
did
diligence”
exercise “due
discov-
failed to
grant
as to those
not
certiorari
claims.
of
testimo-
falsity
the BellSouth
ering
every opportunity
“Hall
As for Hall’s claim that
confession
ny,
that
had
given
testimony
involuntary,
before
Supreme
to evaluate Chambers’s
the Alabama
”
....
Id. Un-
(1)
of the third trial
the start
Hall
observed that
and the
Court:
Frazier,
of
the exercise
due
parte
der Ex
presented conflicting evidence as to
State
of the test for
is an element
diligence
asked for his father to
whether
due
granted
a
trial
be
whether
new
should
prior
questioned,
to
cre-
present
being
be
testimony.
As claim, grant- Supreme voluntary the Alabama Court contrary the confession was only to as petition ed Hall’s certiorari weight of the evidence. Id. at a entitled a new whether defendant not 1087.36 his trial
trial under Frazier —because
diligence in
due
counsel failed
exercise
2254,Petition
M. Federal Section
testimony
false
entitled
finding
—is
30, 2004,
petition
Hall filed a
On March
was ineffec-
because trial counsel
new trial
§
corpus under
2254
28 U.S.C.
for habeas
con-
Supreme
The Alabama
Court
tive.
petition
in federal district court. Hall’s
if
failure to
Smedley’s
that even
cluded
(1)
involun-
that
his confession was
falsity
testimo-
claimed
discover
of Chambers’s
Strickland,
Frazier,
Supreme
Court held that
parte
Supreme
35.
In
the Alabama
34.
In Ex
complaining
ineffective assis-
adopted
non-
a defendant
be used in
the standard
Court
require-
satisfy
testimony
counsel must
two
perjured
tance of
death-penalty cases where
First,
that
ments.
"the defendant must show
In
for new trial.
is the basis for motion
objec-
cases,
representation
an
fell below
only
counsel’s
granted
a new trial should be
such
466 U.S. at
tive standard
reasonableness.”
"reasonably well satis-
the trial court is
where
Second, "[t]he
S.Ct. at 2064.
defen-
104
1)
testimony given by a witness at
fied
that
show that there is
reasonable
false; 2)
dant must
significant
there is a
trial was
that,
unprofes-
truth,
probability
but for counsel’s
it
jury
that had
heard
chance
errors,
proceeding
result;
the result of
3)
sional
have reached a different
would
Id. at
would have been different.”
prove
tending to
the witness’s
evidence
trial;
S.Ct. at 2068.
perjury has been discovered since
4)
not have been
that that evidence could
post-conviction re-
by
Hall did not seek state
during
the exer-
or
trial
discovered before
lief.
diligence.”
at 569-70.
due
562 So.2d
cise of
Miranda,
(2)
law,
tary and in violation of
al
by
as
Supreme
determined
trial
he received ineffective
counsel.37
States,”
Court
the United
or the rele-
vant state-court decision
“was based
claim,
trial
As for his ineffective
counsel
an unreasonable determination of the
(1)
argued
Smedley
ex-
was not
(2)
light
presented
facts
of the
ease,
evidence
perienced enough to handle Hall’s
in the State
funding
proceeding.”
did
court
request
expert
for an
(3) did
investigator,
anyone
not interview
465, 473,
Landrigan,
Schriro v.
550 U.S.
with BellSouth regarding the records of
1933, 1939,
127 S.Ct.
claim. III. HALL’S MIRANDA WAIVER AND CONFESSION II. STANDARD OF REVIEW argues that his waiver and confes- 2254(d), §to Pursuant as amended sion not knowing were and voluntary and by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death should have suppressed. been We first (“AEDPA”), Penalty Act of 1996 a federal general principles governing review the may grant court habeas relief to a juvenile Miranda warnings context prisoner state claims. then Hall’s confession adjudication unless state court’s aof Miranda, claim “resulted in a Under “the must decision that was State contrary to, an prior or involved unreasonable warn the such questioning accused application of, clearly established Feder- of his right to remain silent and of his appeal, challenge 37. On subject parole, Hall does not life may explain tence is which Eighth sentence or assert an Amendment why Eighth he does not raise an Amendment claim that this sentence is unconstitutional challenge. punishment." "cruel unusual Hall's señ-
1285
into whether
counsel,
inquiry
appoint
retained or
have
right to
voluntary, knowing,
Fare v.
and intelli
ed,
during interrogation.”
waiver was
present
C.,
707, 717,
twofold, or,
99 S.Ct.
way,
442 U.S.
gent
stated another
Michael
is
(1979) (juvenile
2560, 2568,
387 U.S.
S.Ct.
18
confession
(1967).
“[tjhe
527
In
involuntary:
L.Ed.2d
cases where a
youth
of
peti-
involved,
juvenile
tioner,
is
counsel was not
detention,
“[i]f
long
failure
permissible
present for some
when
reason
for
parents,
send
his
immedi-
failure
obtained,
greatest
an admission was
ately
bring
him
judge
before the
of the
care must be taken to assure that
Court,
Juvenile
the failure to see to
[and]
voluntary,
admission was
the sense not
it
lawyer
that he had the
of
or
advice
a
”
only
it
suggested,
that was not coerced or
55,
friend....
Id. at
82
at
S.Ct.
product
but also
it was not the
of
hand,
On the
the Supreme
other
Court
or
ignorance
rights
of adolescent fanta-
juvenile’s
has held a
waiver and confession
sy, fright
55,
or despair.”
at
87
Id.
S.Ct.
were knowing
voluntary
where
...
at 1458.
a mere child—an
“[WJhen
juvenile
circumstances
indicate
easy
us,
victim of
spe-
the law—is before
fully
rights
understood his
scrutinizing
cial care in
must
record
be
coerced into
them
waiving
a
making
Age
used.
15
age
is
tender and difficult
by long periods
confession
of interrogation
a boy
any
for
race. He cannot be
pressure
Fare,
or other
tactics.
In
for
judged by
exacting
the more
standards of
instance,
Supreme
Court
held that
Ohio,
maturity.”
596,
v.
Haley
332 U.S.
16-and-l/2-year-old
voluntarily
defendant
302, 303-04,
68 S.Ct.
1287
allegations
hearing
in a
all of these
rights from a denied
juvenile
state
his
was read
form,
at 1309.
read the
state trial court.
Id.
rights
before the
juvenile waiver
it
himself,
signed
before
petition,
§
and then
In his
2254
the defendant
form
at 241^42.
the crime.
Id.
confessing
rape
and
claimed his confession
gave
defendant
officer then
involuntary.
Another
af-
murder was
This Court
before
warnings
record-
Miranda
his adult
court’s denial of
firmed the district
Id. at 241.
statement.
the defendant’s
ing
petition, noting
§
the en-
defendant’s
attorney
an
never asked for
The defendant
court
tire
was before the state
record
allege
and
that he
did
guardian
or a
confessions
which found
defendant’s
making
into
or coerced
was mistreated
sup-
voluntary
amply
and the record
were
Id. at 242.
confession.38
In
finding.
Id. at 1309-10.
ported that
Jarvis,
addition,
affirming,
significant
v.
found
Paxton
this Court
In
(11th Cir.1984),
this
years
1308-10
almost
F.2d
the defendant was
sixteen
juvenile
defen-
concluded that
old,
family
Court
“ample
he
with
contact”
and
knowing
volun-
confession was
dant’s
station, he
members at the
told of
was
shy
he was one month
of his
tary where
charges
warnings and
given
Miranda
birthday,
questioned
was
from
sixteenth
questioning, although extending over
“the
a.m.,
told
until
of the
p.m.
4:30
8:30
night,
most of the
was neither continuous
him,
was twice
against
given
charges
by use of threats or beat-
nor conducted
at 1308-09. The
warnings.
Id.
Miranda
ings.”
at 1310.
Id.
until 12:30
present
mother was
defendant’s
juvenile
has a
Even
defendant
where
a.m.,
the defendant ad-
during which time
intelligence
reading
lower-than-average
breaking into the victim’s home
mitted
level,
may
his
still
waiver
confession
boys
raping
but denied
two other
with
voluntary if
intelligent,
knowing,
be
he
murdering the victim and stated
left the
totality
the circumstances indicate
done.
any harm was
before
home
rights
that he understood
when
police
mother then left the
sta-
defendant’s
Henyard v. McDon
waived them. See
a.m.;
12:30
the officers continued
tion at
Cir.2006).
(11th
1217, 1241
ough, 459 F.3d
a.m.,
and, at 4:27
the de-
questioning,
an
Henyard,
In
this Court concluded
incriminating
signed
fendant
statement
18-year-old defendant’s confession
Although
murder.
rape
in the
himself
*27
voluntary
understood
and the defendant
and mother claimed the
his
the defendant
(1)
explained
the
rights
police
his
where:
not
all of the Miranda
police had
read
twice,
rights
he waived
his
to him
and
defendant,
yelled
threat-
had
at the
rights,
(2)
twice,
intelligence, “although
them
his
defendant,
harm to the
had
physical
ened
that he
was not
low
average,
below
so
him,
him
and had tried to intimidate
beat
(3) the
chair,
his rights,”
the
the
could not understand
alluding
police
to
electric
by
Kerr,
urgency
requires
§
in
notification of
specifically argued,
5033
the
the defendant
38.
In
alia,
sup-
requirement
his
should
parent
guardian,
that
confessions
be
there
no
inter
a
or
is
Kerr,
§ 5033.
120
pressed under 18 U.S.C.
juvenile's
parent
present
be
in order
a
that
for
that,
requires
at 241. Section 5033
F.3d
241
F.3d at
statement to be admissible.” 120
juvenile
custody
is taken into
whenever
added).
(emphasis
analyzed
We then
the vol-
alleged
juvenile delinquency, the
act of
an
based
of the defendant’s confession
untariness
juvenile
his
arresting officer advise the
circumstances, finding it
totality
on the
of the
guardian,
notify
parents,
rights and
the
or
Id. at 241-42.
admissible.
juvenile
juvenile
the
is in
of the
that
custodian
peti-
§
argument
2254
Hall
no
in his
raised
juvenile
rights
the
custody, the
of the
and
ap-
§ 5033
appeal
tion or
that 18 U.S.C.
alleged
18 U.S.C.
of the
offense.
nature
plies to
case.
his
§
"[w]hile
We stated in Kerr
5033.
the
transcript
interrogation
rights
revealed no Miranda
and
subsequent
his
confes-
the
indication that
defendant was confused
knowing, intelligent,
sion were
and volun-
or misunderstood the seriousness of the
tary.
Henyard
Rogers,
As
and
the
(4)
interrogation,
police
the
did not engage
continually
officers
ju-
read Hall his state
any trickery,
or
deception,
improper
(twice)
rights
venile
and his adult Miranda
(5)
tactics,
interrogation
and
the defendant
(twice).
rights
Thus, four times Hall was
previous experience
justice
had
with the
told that he
right
had a
to remain silent
system. Henyard,
at
459 F.3d
and a
right
counsel. Hall himself also
juvenile
read his state
and adult Miranda
Likewise, Rogers Quarterman,
v.
-
Thus,
rights.
twice,
told
(5th
was
Cir.),
denied,
F.3d 483
cert.
U.S.
once,
read
right
himself
that he had a
-,
(2009),
130 S.Ct.
who took his statement testified that the confession, his audiotaped Hall also ac- petitioner it well, read aloud and read it knowledged that signed he had the forms (3) alert, petitioner well-ori waiving rights. his Miranda ented, and able communicate ideas with too, Importantly transcript and au- out difficulty. Id. Although 15-year- diotape give of Hall’s confession no indica- petitioner old in Rogers no prior expe tion whatsoever that Hall was confused or rience justice system with the criminal misunderstood the seriousness of in- intellectually at an younger functioned age, terrogation or questions being the Fifth Circuit also noted he “was Although asked. Hall testified at sup- continuously lengthily interrogated, pression hearing that he could not under- [] was period detained for a of hours rights, stand his he also [,] admitted that he days rather than ... was continuously *28 in could fact read apprised deny and did not rights, of his the and while he may officers twice read juve- have at out loud his younger age functioned a state intellec tually, nile rights the and adult rights. record indicated he Miranda understood those Hall rights.” Id. at 495. has not shown that his intelligence was that so low he not could understand We now apply principles these to Hall’s rights his the consequences or of his waiv- case. er. IV. HALL’S CONFESSION Hall Although years was fifteen and totality of the eleven months old at circumstances the time he confess- here ed, indicates that waiver Hall’s of Hall only his was seven months younger
1289 16-year-old suggest any defendant in Fare Hall did not at time during the than years upheld audiotaped was over 30 the 20-minute whose confession that confession Although age evidence, Hall the same as he his ago. was wanted From this father. decision, Haley 1948 trial jury the defendant the the state court and could reason- subjected pres- the was not intense ably Hall that Hall not request determine did interrogation tactics or coercive that sure his and Hall’s deny sup- father motion in Haley Gallegos or en- the defendants press. not Importantly, Hall was in- countered. event, any In if Hall even had period an of
terrogated for extended time. requested presence father, the of his this Rather, only interrogated he was a request automatically would not render his station, an hour at the little over from involuntary waiver and confession as a 5:42 when he was first approximately p.m., matter of Regardless of federal law. what rights, his Miranda until his confes- read requires, clearly Alabama law there is no audiotaped p.m. sion was from 7:06 7:26 established constitutional require federal transcript audiotape p.m. The record- (1) that police juve ment: advise officers ing of his confession reveal no evidence niles, crimes, suspected of state of a right by police, that he was mistreated the parent during question present have tricked, rights waiving or coerced into his (2) ing, that interrogation or cease upon confessing. during asked his au- or When juvenile’s request for presence of a had diotaped confession whether he been parent guardian.40 or threatened, Hall had stated he not Nonetheless, recognize we that whether audiotape, been threatened. On the parent present a factor was is to be gave the crime in confessed to detail totality considered of the circum- by was fed facts no indication he Fare, 442 stances. See U.S. 99 (as claims), he that he officers now was given totality S.Ct. at 2572. And of (as confessing frightened into he now particular in this circumstances shown (as claims), that he or did understand record, say we the Alabama claims).39 cannot courts’ fact, transcript now In determination that Hall’s waiver an just opposite. the confession shows unreasonable determination of facts audiotape of the of Hall’s con- Our review light nor it presented, of the evidence fession confirms its voluntariness. The to, application contrary an unreasonable of Hall’s voice certain tone is calm and of, clearly law. established federal suggest Major does not duress. Officer tones; speaks in normal is voice meas- recognize We Hall also contends that non-threatening. ured police him the police coerced because (1) father, him Major read the facts the crime from a As Hall’s Officers (2) over,” paper request piece that Hall did not “over and told Grant testified they And him present. significantly, videotape his father be recognize prior expe- police We that Hall had no remain silent and that re- were justice system quired interrogation immediately rience with the for him to be- to cease un- Therefore, warnings. any come with the Miranda der familiar Miranda. he has waived However, them, Now, signed argument. Hall could read Inc. such See Access v. Sw. forms, Co., (11th rights waiver even had his read to F.3d Cir. Airlines *29 ("[T]he by 2004) twice by him out loud the officers. well law is now settled legal argument this Circuit that a claim or not briefed the court is argued that that has been before appeal, 40. On Hall has not his its will be alleged request presence deemed abandoned and merits not for his father's addressed.”). right an invocation of his Fifth Amendment to 1290 (3) 2010) (No. crime, Jun., 09-10597).
committing
began
the
In order to
Hall,
threatening
chair,
kicked his
and hit
satisfy
prong,
petitioner
the first
must
sitting.
the desk where he was
Hall prove
attorney’s performance
that his
“
only
keep
claims that he
the
confessed
to
‘failed to
of
meet
standard
reason-
“attacking”
from
him. In
officers
the state
professional
prevailing
ableness under
”
testified,
hearings,
the officers
denied norms.’
Id. at 1280 (quoting Newland v.
allegations,
directly
Hall’s
contradict- Hall,
(11th Cir.2008)).
1162,
527 F.3d
1184
conflicting
ed Hall. The
testimony created
performance
counsel,
In
evaluating the
“
court;
therefore,
fact issues for the state
‘indulge[s]
strong
this Court
presump-
the state court’s determination that
that
performance
tion
counsel’s
was rea-
was in
voluntary,
op-
confession
fact
as
signifi-
sonable and that counsel
all
made
posed
coerced,
not
is
unreasonable
cant decisions in the exercise of reasonable
”
based on the
evidence
the overall rec-
professional
judgment.’
Id. Further-
ord.
more, we
an attorney’s perform-
review
“
ance
‘from
perspective
counsel’s
at the
V.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
time,
to avoid the distorting effects of
OF COUNSEL
hindsight,”’
objective
and the
is
review
argues
Smedley,
Hall next
that
“ ‘in that we consider whether there was
counsel,
as trial
was ineffective because
any
justification
reasonable
for the attor-
(1)
present expert
she:
did not
testimony
”
“
ney’s
‘Thus,
petition-
conduct.’
Id.
about Hall’s low
level
intellectual abili
must
er
establish that no competent coun-
ty or his difficulty understanding di
sel would have taken the
action
his
(2)
rections,
failed to interview or
wit
call
”
counsel did
satisfy
take’
order to
nesses to show that
testimony
Chambers’s
prong.
first
Id.
(3)
false,
as
telephone
to the
records was
petitioner
In order
satisfy
for a
failed to call
or
pres
witnesses
“otherwise
prong,
second
is
enough
not
“[i]t
ent available evidence” in support of
defendant
to show that
the errors had
(4)
defense,
Hall’s alibi
did not call
some
effect
conceivable
on the outcome of
character
Hall argues
witnesses.
....
errors,
proceeding
Smedley’s
individually
defendant must
and collec
tively,
show that
constituted
there is
performance
probability
deficient
reasonable
that,
prejudiced
which
his defense.41
but for
unprofessional
counsel’s
er-
“
rors, the
proceeding
result
would
‘An ineffective assistance claim has two
have been
A
proba-
different.
reasonable
components: A petitioner must show that
bility
probability
is a
sufficient
under-
performance
deficient,
counsel’s
mine confidence in the outcome.” Strick-
deficiency
prejudiced the de
”
668,
v. Washington,
693-94,
land
466 U.S.
Hall,
1273,
fense.’ Rhode v.
582 F.3d
2052, 2067-68,
(11th
104 S.Ct.
Cir.2009)
involvement
Ex
Hall also that Smedley contends failed in its preju conclusion that Hall not was or present interview witnesses to show by testimony. diced Chambers’s false At testimony Chambers’s as was false trial, Smedley significantly period retention for undermined the BellSouth’s tele- phone outgoing records of local credibility calls. Had of testimony during Chambers’s so, she Hall argues, done testi- Chambers’s by pointing cross-examination out the odd mony not would have undermined Hall’s ity that any BellSouth had no records of alibi. outgoing phone any local from calls of the multiple question court, homes the entire
The state trial in denying the trial, day, despite testimony motion for new of concluded that Smed- numerous ley’s performance Moreover, not fall did below the contrary.43 witnesses to the Furthermore, Strickland standard. juror one testified that Chambers’s testi trial court concluded there no was mony was difficult to believe and was prejudice because testimony Chambers’s largely by disregarded jury. Finally, at trial not “did indicate that there were no Chambers, even absent the testimony calls, but [that] ‘we have no record significant there was evidence the rec ” any days,’ calls for those those— that Hall guilty, including ord his own testimony juror of a indicated that the audiotaped confession and Leak’s testimo jury ignored the phone evidence of the ny. records. The Court Alabama of Criminal summary, In Hall has not carried his affirmed, Appeals then Hall v. State of burden to Supreme show the Alabama Alabama, CR-00-1180, 540, No. 876 So.2d Court’s decision—that Hall preju- was not 2002 WL (Ala.Crim.App. Oct. by Smedley’s present diced failure to evi- 2002) (unpublished), as did the Alabama falsity dence of the of Chambers’s testimo- Supreme Hall, parte Court. Ex 863 So.2d ny contrary to or an unreasonable at 1081. —was law, application of federal or based on an The Alabama Supreme Court not did unreasonable determination facts. performance reach prong agreed but with ruling the trial court’s that the truth C. Failure to Present Additional Alibi telephone about records would Evidence have affected the outcome of the trial: records, also contends that he was telephone “The denied like the evi- other dence, (1) merely presented a trial jury Smedley conflict the effective counsel because required in assessing resolve Armstrong, failed to call Pamela Gloria Also, testify Chambers did not that there rather that BellSouth did not records show phone were any no calls October outgoing phone 1999 but calls. *32 trial not presented at con- as alibi evidence and Sunkeissa Cantrell McElroy, (2) any present failed to trary application witnesses to or an unreasonable of In his alibi. support of evidence law, other nor it clearly established federal trial, the for a new his motion denying on of an unreasonable determination based Hall’s alibi court concluded that state trial facts. rep- adequately tha[n] was “more defense testimony of the through resented” D. Character Witnesses trial, and testify at who did
witnesses
have
cu-
“[a]ny
would
been
other evidence
he
Finally, Hall contends that was
of
The Alabama Court
Crimi-
mulative.”
trial counsel because
deprived of effective
agreed
findings.
with these
Appeals
nal
Smedley
not
had and
persons
“did
call
who
Darryl
to
testified as
Hall’s
would have
is well-settled
this Cir
“[I]t
trial
good
an
character.” The
court
petitioner
a
cannot establish
cuit that
by
simply
claim
ineffective assistance
of
Appeals
Alabama Court Criminal
found
that could
pointing to additional evidence
Smedley’s performance was not
inef
Rhode, 582
at
presented.”
have
F.3d
been
fective, and that conclusion is not unrea
omitted).
marks
(quotation
1284
“Counsel
sonable. Several witnesses at the third
evi
required
present
to
cumulative
is
trial
that Hall was not
testified
involved
incompatible with
dence or evidence
activity. Hall’s father testified that
gang
1287;
Bobby
see
strategy.” Id.
defense
prob
discipline
Hall had never had serious
-
Hook,
U.S. -,
130 S.Ct.
v. Van
Hall
problems
lems
at school.
has
(2009) (“[T]here
19,
BABY INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-Counter- Defendant-Appellant, v. US, INC.,
TOYS “R” corpo Delaware Toys ration, Delaware, Inc., “R” Us —