Anderson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections: Panel Upholds Death Sentence Over Ineffectiveness Claim Based on Failure to Discover Prior Sexual Abuse; Judge Martin Writes Separately

Anderson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, No. 11-13921, from MDFla

 

Majority: Circuit Judge Tjoflat joined by Senior Circuit Judge Dubina.

Special Concurrence:  Circuit Judge Martin.

Summary of Majority Opinion:  The petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death after he shot two bank tellers (killing one) during the course of a robbery.  He sought a writ of habeas corpus based on ineffective assistance of counsel.  Specifically he claimed that his attorneys failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of mitigating evidence.  

Since evidence of the petitioner’s guilt (including a confession) was overwhelming, his lawyers focused on avoiding a death sentence.  They had the petitioner fill out a questionnaire, on which he indicated he had never been sexually abused, never had any head trauma, and was not a regular abuser of drugs. He also met with a forensic psychologist for approximately thirteen hours. The psychologist concluded that there was nothing that could serve as a mitigating factor.

His post-conviction attorneys nevertheless located a cousin and two psychologists who testified that the petitioner was sexually abused as a child and suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.  They also concluded that he suffered brain damage from a car accident he was involved in.

The panel rejected the claim that the petitioner’s attorneys were ineffective for failing to discover that he had been sexually abused as a child, since he repeatedly denied he had been abused.  The panel also found that he had not shown prejudice, because of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.  The panel further concluded that the attorneys were not ineffective for failing to hire the forensic psychologist earlier, or for failing to give her more time to examine the petitioner.

Note: Lots of descriptive footnotes in the majority opinion.  Thoroughness is Judge Tjoflat’s hallmark.

Concurring Opinion: In a short concurrence, Circuit Judge Martin concurred in the result only. She could not agree with the majority’s reasoning, so she wrote separately.  She would not reach the issue of prejudice, because the petitioner failed to show deficient performance.  She specifically noted that she did not agree with the majority that the Florida Supreme Court reasonably applied the prejudice prong of Strickland in this case, because she did not believe the state court appropriately reweighed the totality of the mitigating evidence against all of the aggravating evidence. She believed that the mitigating evidence of sexual abuse was horrific and disagreed that its remoteness diminished its weight in mitigation. 

Note: The title of Circuit Judge Martin’s opinion reads “Martin, J., concurring in result only.”  The typical designation of “J” is for a Supreme Court “Justice.” Eleventh Circuit judges typically place “Circuit Judge” after their names (as Judge Tjoflat did in the majority opinion).