Louis Joe TRUESDALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael B. MOORE, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 97-24.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 2, 1998. Decided April 29, 1998.
142 F.3d 749
ENFORCEMENT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
ARGUED: Mark Oliver Denehy, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Inc., Providence, RI; John Henry Blume, III, Columbia, SC, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Joseph Avanzato, Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Inc., Providence, RI; Keir M. Weyble, Columbia, SC, for Appellant. Charles M. Condon, Atty. Gen., John W. McIntosh, Deputy Atty. Gen., Columbia, SC, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILLIAMS and Judge MICHAEL joined.
WILKINSON, Chief Judge:
Louis Joe Truesdale was sentenced to death for the murder of Rebecca Eudy. After exhausting state challenges to the third death sentence imposed by the state courts, he petitioned the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina for a writ of habeas corpus under
I.
On Saturday, April 5, 1980, Rebecca Eudy‘s car was found, abandoned, with a pool of blood on the passenger‘s seat and floor. Sandra Marshall, the friend with whom Eudy had spent the evening of Friday, April 4, told police that she had seen a man in an army field jacket lurking around the parking lot where she and Eudy parted for the evening. She also told the police that Eudy drove erratically out of the parking lot—Eudy did not turn on her lights, and she went to the wrong exit. Marshall pulled over to wait for her friend. As Eudy passed, Eudy remained expressionless and did not wave or smile as she ordinarily did. The police learned from another witness, Roy Curry, that a man in an army jacket had been lurking around another parking lot earlier that evening before driving off in a car registered to Truesdale. The police picked Truesdale up on the afternoon of April 5, informed him of his rights, and took him to the police station for questioning.
Truesdale was again advised of his rights at the station. He said he understood them and proceeded to answer questions. He claimed that he had been fishing Friday afternoon and playing pool with friends until 1:00 Saturday morning. The police began investigating his story. Although not satisfied with his alibi, they told Truesdale he was free to leave around midnight on April 5. Truesdale chose to stay with the police and accompanied them to track down the people with whom he said he had played pool. Truesdale fell asleep in the car, and when he awoke he told the police he “hadn‘t killed any girl.” According to the police, at this time they were not yet certain Eudy had been
Around 2:30 a.m. on Sunday, April 6, the police and Truesdale returned to the Sheriff‘s Department. Truesdale said he wanted to go home. The police told him he was free to leave. Nevertheless, Truesdale continued to speak with the police, eventually telling them to go to his mother‘s house, where they would find a bloody pair of jeans and an army field jacket. After the police retrieved the bloody clothes and Truesdale again waived his Miranda rights, Truesdale confessed that he had kidnapped Eudy and had sexual intercourse with her. He insisted that he had himself been kidnapped and forced to commit these acts at gunpoint by an unidentified third person, who shot and killed Eudy. He then took the police to the field where Eudy‘s body was located. At this point Truesdale was arrested for kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, and murder. On April 8, 1980, Truesdale signed a statement prepared for him by the police reiterating his confession to kidnapping and forcible sexual intercourse with Eudy and implicating the unidentified third person in Eudy‘s murder.
Truesdale was tried for kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, and murder in December 1980. Truesdale initially pled not guilty, but after the jury was selected he changed his plea to guilty. The jury recommended a sentence of death on the murder charge. The sentence was vacated on direct appeal and a new trial ordered. State v. Truesdale, 278 S.C. 368, 296 S.E.2d 528 (1982). At this second trial, which took place in 1983, Truesdale again pled not guilty to all charges. The State supplemented its evidence from the 1980 trial with ballistics evidence linking the bullets that killed Eudy to a gun found outside Truesdale‘s mother‘s house. Truesdale‘s counsel presented no evidence in his defense. The jury found Truesdale guilty of murder, criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, and kidnapping. At the sentencing phase, the State introduced two photos of Eudy‘s lifeless body as evidence of aggravation. Truesdale unsuccessfully sought to introduce evidence that showed his ability to adapt to prison life. After deliberating for fifteen minutes, the jury recommended that Truesdale be sentenced to death.1
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. State v. Truesdale, 285 S.C. 13, 328 S.E.2d 53 (1984). And Truesdale‘s petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was unsuccessful. Truesdale v. South Carolina, 471 U.S. 1009, 105 S.Ct. 1878, 85 L.Ed.2d 170 (1985). After the South Carolina courts denied his application for postconviction relief (PCR), Truesdale v. Aiken, 289 S.C. 488, 347 S.E.2d 101 (1986), however, the United States Supreme Court granted Truesdale‘s petition for a writ of certiorari and vacated his death sentence on grounds that Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986), entitled him to introduce evidence of his adaptability to prison life. Truesdale v. Aiken, 480 U.S. 527, 107 S.Ct. 1394, 94 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987).
Truesdale‘s resentencing took place in 1987. The State again presented evidence adduced during the guilt phase of the 1983 trial, supplemented with forensic evidence to establish that Eudy had been raped and that Truesdale could have been the rapist. The State again introduced a photograph of Eudy‘s body as evidence of aggravation. Truesdale countered with testimony from family and friends, teachers, employers, co-workers, and prison officials. After twelve hours of deliberation, the jury again recommended a death sentence. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence. State v. Truesdale, 301 S.C. 546, 393 S.E.2d 168 (1990). And Truesdale‘s certiorari petition to the United States Supreme Court was denied. Truesdale v. South Carolina, 498 U.S. 1074, 111 S.Ct. 800, 112 L.Ed.2d 861 (1991).
Truesdale‘s federal habeas petition was filed on September 13, 1996. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge. After denying Truesdale‘s request for an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge granted the State‘s motion for summary judgment. The district court accepted the magistrate judge‘s report and recommendation in full and dismissed Truesdale‘s petition. Truesdale now appeals.
II.
Truesdale claims he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at his 1987 resentencing proceeding. He charges counsel with a variety of errors, which can be grouped into two general categories: (1) the failure to present evidence either in mitigation or that would rebut the State‘s case on the aggravating factors of kidnapping and sexual assault; and (2) the failure to raise the claim that African Americans were underrepresented in the jury pool in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Neither of these claims provides a basis for habeas relief.2
A.
At his 1993 state PCR proceeding Truesdale identified the rebuttal and mitigating evidence he claims counsel should have raised in 1987. He presented the testimony of numerous witnesses, including family, friends, acquaintances, attorneys, and experts. These witnesses testified to, among other things, his claimed prior romantic relationship with Eudy, the alleged inconclusiveness of the forensic evidence that he raped Eudy or that he and she had any sexual relations at all, the fact that bloody fingerprints on Eudy‘s car did not match Truesdale‘s, and the claim that Truesdale suffered from organic brain dysfunction. Truesdale contends it was unreasonable for his resentencing counsel not to uncover and present this evidence to the jury to counter the State‘s case in aggravation. For example, Truesdale states that evidence of romantic involvement between Eudy and himself suggests that Eudy went with him willingly (instead of being kidnapped) and that any sexual relations between him and Eudy were consensual (instead of rape). And he claims that evidence of the mysterious bloody fingerprints would have corroborated his story that an armed third person forced him to attack Eudy.
At this late stage, our review of counsel‘s performance is quite deferential. The Supreme Court has instructed us to “indulge a strong presumption that counsel‘s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Thus we ask not whether, with the benefit of hindsight, we would have conducted the defense differently. In the wake of a conviction and death sentence such a conclusion “is all too tempting.” Id. Rather we must place ourselves in the shoes of Truesdale‘s attorneys and ask only whether their choices were
As did the district court, we conclude that Truesdale‘s resentencing counsel pursued a reasonable strategy of attempting to downplay the brutal crimes committed against Eudy and to portray Truesdale as a normal person with a single aberrant episode of violence. As counsel explained:
[W]e felt that he had already been convicted [of kidnapping and rape] and we wanted to try and stay away from all that evidence. We wanted to stay away from any rehashing of the same kinds of things that would hurt our case. We wanted to then try to mitigate, I think, as much as we could. We were looking more towards the mitigation, of calling the witnesses from C.C.I., which were a development that prior two trial lawyers didn‘t have available to them.
And I remember distinctly calling the young son, which, again, by this time had grown in age and was a strategy to try to engender as much sympathy as we can for Louis, also showing that he could be rehabilitated, that he would be incarcerated but rehabilitated and perhaps save his life.
In this case we had a fresh jury that had not heard the guilt phase. I was in hopes, I think at this point in time, seven years had passed from the first trial. I was in hopes that the solicitor perhaps would not be as sharp on his presentation, that he wouldn‘t get the kinds of things in that perhaps cross examination might remind him of.
I think that was our strategy, was try to minimize the guilt aspect of it and try to maximize the mitigation.
This reasonable strategy dictated both what counsel did—present abundant character evidence in hopes of giving the jury a favorable impression of Truesdale as a normal, happy person—and what counsel did not do—relitigate the gruesome details of Truesdale‘s crimes or suggest that Truesdale suffered from mental illness at the time.
This strategy of painting a sympathetic character portrait rather than rehashing the details of defendant‘s past convictions meets Strickland‘s standards. Counsel reasonably chose not to introduce any rebuttal evidence about the kidnapping and rape. Truesdale had already confessed to kidnapping and sexually assaulting Eudy, and his responsibility for her murder had been conclusively established by his conviction. Thus counsel reasonably concluded that disputing precisely how Eudy was abducted, assaulted, and killed could serve no constructive purpose and might in fact do more harm than good. For example, dwelling on whether Eudy was dead or alive when she was sexually assaulted, as Truesdale now claims counsel should have done, would not have been likely to build sympathy for Truesdale. In fact, such an approach might well squander the advantage of having a fresh jury deciding Truesdale‘s sentence, see Evans v. Thompson, 881 F.2d 117, 121 (4th Cir.1989), by prolonging the jury‘s exposure to the grisly facts of Eudy‘s rape and murder. While Truesdale complains that counsel was unaware of some of this rebuttal evidence, it was not unreasonable for counsel to limit his investigation. In Strickland the Court recognized that counsel might “make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. In focusing almost exclusively on mitigation rather than rebuttal, Truesdale‘s counsel made just such a reasonable tactical decision.
Nor was there anything unreasonable about counsel‘s selection of what mitigating evidence to present. Truesdale says counsel should have informed the jury that his history of substance abuse had resulted in organic brain dysfunction. This condition caused Truesdale to have “difficulty with cognitive tasks, judgment, things of that sort that would require quick rational thinking” and made him less able to adapt his behavior to societal norms. We have recognized that “[t]rial counsel is too frequently placed in a no-win situation with respect to possible mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase of a capital case.” Bunch v. Thompson, 949 F.2d 1354, 1364 (4th Cir.1991). Failure to present particular mitigating evidence often leads to claims that counsel should have introduced
B.
Truesdale also asserts that it was constitutionally ineffective assistance for his resentencing counsel not to object that South Carolina‘s procedure for selecting jury venires, drawing them at random from voter registration lists, violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. He alleges that this error tainted the jury that sentenced him to death in 1980, the jury that convicted him and again sentenced him to death in 1983, and the jury that finally sentenced him to death in 1987. Truesdale cannot now raise the claims relating to the 1980 and 1983 trials, as he did not raise them at the 1985 state PCR hearing.3
To make out a prima facie case for a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury venire that is a “fair cross-section” of the community, Truesdale must establish that (1) a “distinctive” segment of the community (2) is “substantially underrepresented” in the jury pool (3) as a result of “systematic exclusion” of the group. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664, 668-69, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). Truesdale has not advanced any direct evidence of “systematic exclusion” of African Americans from the venire. Instead he seeks to rely on the bare assertion of substantial underrepresentation to prove that there was a structural or systemic impediment to voter registration by African Americans. We have consistently required more to make out a violation of the “fair cross-section” guarantee. The use of voter registration lists “has been consistently upheld against both statutory and constitutional challenges, unless the voter list in question had been compiled in a discriminatory manner.” United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431, 1445 (4th Cir.1988) (en banc) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Lewis, 10 F.3d 1086 (4th Cir.1993) (approving use of non-discriminatory voter registration lists in jury selection). “The Supreme Court has never gone so far as to hold that the constitution requires venires to be, statistically, a substantially true mirror of the community.” Cecil, 836 F.2d at 1445-46 (quoting Barber v. Ponte, 772 F.2d 982, 997 (1st Cir.1985) (en banc)). To allow Truesdale to substitute evidence of substantial underrepresentation for evidence of systematic exclusion would go a long way towards requiring perfect statistical correspondence between racial percentages in the venire and those in the community. Such a rule would exalt racial proportionality over neutral jury selection procedure.
Truesdale also argues that the composition of the jury pool violated the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied in Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977). He acknowledges that to prevail on this claim he must show some evidence that the selection procedure “is susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral.” Id. at 494, 97 S.Ct. at 1280. Truesdale advances no
Finding no merit in Truesdale‘s challenges to the 1987 jury pool, we cannot say that it was constitutionally ineffective assistance for his counsel not to raise these claims at resentencing. It is certainly reasonable for counsel not to raise unmeritorious claims. And because these claims would have been dismissed had they been raised, Truesdale cannot show a reasonable probability of any different outcome at resentencing. Cf. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 371, 113 S.Ct. 838, 843-44, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993) (finding no prejudice from failure to raise a claim based on a precedent that was later overruled).
III.
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus Truesdale also specified thirteen grounds for challenging the fairness of his 1983 trial and the effectiveness of his 1983 counsel. We agree with the district court that most of Truesdale‘s fair trial claims are procedurally defaulted because they were not raised on direct appeal of his conviction and sentence. Kornahrens v. Evatt, 66 F.3d 1350, 1361-64 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied sub nom., Kornahrens v. Moore, 517 U.S. 1171, 116 S.Ct. 1575, 134 L.Ed.2d 673 (1996). And because he did not raise his ineffective assistance claim at the 1985 PCR proceeding, it too is barred. Mackall v. Angelone, 131 F.3d 442 (4th Cir.1997) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 907, 139 L.Ed.2d 922 (1998). We address the three remaining fair trial claims in turn.4
First, Truesdale contends that admission of evidence about his assertion of the right to remain silent denied him a fair trial. At trial, a police officer related to the jury that while Truesdale was in custody, and before Eudy‘s death was generally known, Truesdale declared to the police that he “hadn‘t killed any girl.” The offending statement came thereafter, when the officer told the jury that Truesdale did not respond when he was asked what girl he was talking about. We shall assume arguendo that this remark constitutes a violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2245, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), which recognized that introduction of evidence that the defendant invoked his right to remain silent largely vitiates that right. Nevertheless, any alleged Doyle error was harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). At no other point in the trial was Truesdale‘s silence made known to the jury—neither the police nor the prosecutor referred to it again. See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 764, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 3108, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (“It is significant that in
Next, Truesdale challenges the trial court‘s instruction on reasonable doubt.5 We have disfavored any attempt on the part of federal trial courts to define reasonable doubt, although we have been reluctant to reverse where the instruction as a whole in no way diluted the government‘s burden of proof. See United States v. Reives, 15 F.3d 42, 45 (4th Cir.1994). This same inquiry about whether the government benefitted from a diluted burden of proof must inform our collateral review of this sentence. Truesdale charges that by equating reasonable doubt with “a real doubt” and “a substantial doubt” the instruction led the jury to believe that it could convict him based upon a lower standard of proof. While in the proper case, substituting “substantial doubt” for “reasonable doubt” might violate due process, the mere use of the words “substantial doubt” does not do so. See, e.g., Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 19-20, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 1249-50, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). In fact, we rejected a due process challenge to very similar instructions before, finding that “the full instruction tempered any risk of confusion from the substantial doubt language.” Kornahrens, 66 F.3d at 1363; see also Adams v. Aiken, 41 F.3d 175, 179-80 (4th Cir.1994). As in Victor and Adams, the instruction used at Truesdale‘s trial contrasted “substantial doubt” with “weak doubt,” “slight doubt,” and “whimsical, fanciful or imaginary doubt.” This contrast clarifies that the term “substantial doubt” was used in the sense that Victor allowed, to mean doubt that is “not seeming or imaginary,” rather than in the sense Victor condemned, which is doubt “specified to a large degree.” See Victor, 511 U.S. at 19-20, 114 S.Ct. at 1250; Adams, 41 F.3d at 181. Because the jury was clearly instructed that they need not feel doubt “to a large degree” in order to acquit and that any doubt that was not fanciful or imaginary would suffice for acquittal, the instruction did not lessen the government‘s burden.
Third, Truesdale challenges the exclusion of two potential jurors, Johnnie McCluney and Willie Powell, on the basis of their alleged unwillingness to impose the death penalty. We hold the trial court‘s exclusion of these veniremen to be wholly consistent with the standard set forth in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), and Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986). We generally review the determinations of the trial judge, who had the benefit of first-hand exposure to the voir dire, with deference. This deference means that where a venireman‘s responses reveal some ambiguity about his willingness or ability to impose the death penalty, we presume the correctness of the trial court‘s decision. Maynard v. Dixon, 943 F.2d 407, 415 (4th Cir.1991). Taken as a whole, the statements of McCluney and Powell at the very least evidence ambiguity, and several statements by each manifest a flat unwillingness to sentence another to death. For example, McCluney indicated that she did not believe she could impose the death penalty, that she would feel as guilty as the murderer she was sentencing, that God would not be pleased were she to vote for death, and that death was a judgment only God could make. Similarly, Powell stated numerous times that he opposed the death penalty and confirmed that his opposition to it would prevent him
IV.
Finally, Truesdale challenges Judicial Council Order No. 113, which governs death penalty representation in the Fourth Circuit. Order No. 113, adopted by this circuit‘s Judicial Council on October 3, 1996, has two primary purposes. First, it establishes guidelines to ensure qualified representation of all capital defendants in federal courts in this circuit. The order outlines a plan for district courts and the circuit court to identify qualified attorneys who are available to render assistance to capital defendants at federal trials and appeals as well as in federal postconviction proceedings. The order charges the courts to ascertain which attorneys have enough experience and expertise to serve as lead counsel and which are qualified to serve only as second-chair counsel and to compile lists of these attorneys. The courts are to monitor attorneys’ developing expertise and update these lists as necessary. The order further recommends that Federal Public Defenders be eligible to represent federal criminal defendants at capital trials, on direct appeal, and in proceedings pursuant to
Truesdale challenges only the second aspect of the order. He claims that the timetable established in Order No. 113 for the disposition of habeas petitions brought by death-sentenced defendants is invalid as inconsistent with AEDPA and because it was promulgated without the public notice and opportunity for comment outlined in
A.
Quite independently of AEDPA, Congress has vested Judicial Councils with general governmental authority over the circuits. The Judicial Council of each circuit is instructed to “make all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit.”
Truesdale makes much of AEDPA‘s so-called quid pro quo, charging that Order No. 113 disrupts the statute‘s incentive structure. He claims that the order gives states in the Fourth Circuit the benefits of opting into Chapter 154 of AEDPA—shortened deadlines for capital habeas petitions—without requiring these states to meet Chapter 154‘s requirements for opting in—guaranteed resources and representation for state habeas petitioners. But this objection to Order No. 113 misses the mark for several reasons.
First, Truesdale overlooks one important difference between AEDPA and the Judicial Council‘s order: their different enforcement provisions. AEDPA gives states power to “enforce a time limitation” imposed on a district court “by petitioning for a writ of mandamus to the court of appeals,”
Nor can we identify any inconsistency between the aims of AEDPA and Order No. 113. Like Order No. 113, AEDPA itself was designed to streamline federal collateral review of capital sentences. The statute expedites this process both by imposing time constraints in some capital cases, see
Ultimately, Truesdale‘s claim that the Judicial Council‘s exercise of its governance authority somehow conflicts with AEDPA is unavailing. Congress was fully aware of the authority that Judicial Councils exercise over the expeditious conduct of litigation in their respective circuits. Yet AEDPA did not speak at all to the powers or role of Judicial Councils, much less abridge or curtail them, raising the strong presumption that the statute left unchanged the Councils’ responsibility under section 332. In this way, AEDPA left the Councils with the authority, and indeed the obligation, to make particularized findings and responsive orders as necessary to address conditions of delay within their respective jurisdictions.
In adopting Order No. 113, this circuit‘s Judicial Council simply exercised its recognized power to address this problem. Before Order No. 113, the Fourth Circuit faced a problem of delay in collateral review of capital convictions and sentences. In the report accompanying Order No. 113 the Judicial Council itself referred to the case of Correll v. Thompson, 63 F.3d 1279 (4th Cir.1995), where a § 2254 petition languished in the district court for three years. This case was no aberration, and in fact delays of three to ten years were not unusual. See, e.g., Roberts v. Moore, 1998 WL 77841 (4th Cir. Feb. 4, 1998) (unpublished) (§ 2254 petition pending in district court since 1987 prior to appeal); Gilbert v. Moore, 134 F.3d 642 (4th Cir.1998) (en banc) (§ 2254 petition pending in district court since 1984 prior to appeal); Howard v. Moore, 131 F.3d 399 (4th Cir.1997) (en banc) (§ 2254 petition pending in district court since 1993 prior to appeal). Unquestionably, such pervasive “delay in criminal cases is an impediment to the ‘expe-
The Council thus acted pursuant to its statutory authority in responding to a recurrent problem of delay in collateral review of capital cases. Its response, Order No. 113, falls within the core of the Judicial Council‘s § 332 power and took the precise form Congress envisioned when it vested Judicial Councils with administrative responsibility for the conduct of judicial business within the circuits. It cannot be said that a Judicial Council has misused its authority when it fulfills the very purpose for which Congress has established it.
B.
Next Truesdale claims the Judicial Council violated the command of
The relevant statute,
C.
Finally, Truesdale has failed to identify how Order No. 113 has caused him prejudice. A petitioner claiming that he is illegally detained should desire his claims to be decided expeditiously. Moreover, this case has suffered from no shortage of due process. The issues that lie at the heart of Truesdale‘s petition have been extensively canvassed in eighteen years of litigation in state and federal court. Rebecca Eudy was murdered in 1980, and this litigation has been ongoing since then, including two trials, three sentencing hearings, numerous state appeals, four petitions for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court (one of which resulted in resentencing), multiple state PCR proceedings, and now a petition for federal habeas relief. Regardless of Order No. 113, this opinion would issue in a timely fashion simply because of the obligation every court should feel to render judgment promptly and conscientiously. We are satisfied that the jury‘s verdict and sentence have substantial evidentiary support and that they were imposed in accordance with constitutional requirements. Having heard oral argument from able counsel and having reviewed Truesdale‘s claims with care, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the petition.
AFFIRMED.
WILKINSON
CHIEF JUDGE