F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
February 21, 2007
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
G LEN N D O UG LA S A N D ER SON,
Petitioner-A ppellant,
v. No. 04-6397
M ARTY SIRM ONS, W arden,
Oklahoma State Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellee.
A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FO R TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT O F O K LAH O M A
(D.C. NO . CV-01-177-M )
Lisa S. M cCalmont (Randy Bauman w ith her on the briefs), Assistant Federal
Public D efenders, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for A ppellant.
Robert W hittaker, Assistant Attorney General (W . A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney
General of Oklahoma, with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for
Appellee.
Before L UC ER O, EBEL, and M U RPH Y, Circuit Judges.
M U RPH Y, Circuit Judge.
I. IN TR OD UC TIO N
Following trial in Oklahoma state court, a jury convicted Glenn Douglas
Anderson of, inter alia, three counts of first degree murder. Anderson v. State,
992 P.2d 409, 412-13 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). The jury sentenced Anderson to
death on each of the three murder convictions. Id. at 413. The O klahoma Court
of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) affirmed on direct appeal Anderson’s convictions
and death sentences. Id. at 425. It also denied his subsequent request for post-
conviction relief. Anderson v. State, No. PC-99-818, slip. op. at 7 (Okla. Crim.
App. Jan. 26, 2000). Anderson then filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
corpus petition in federal district court. In his § 2254 habeas petition, Anderson
asserted ten grounds in support of his claim that both his convictions and death
sentences were constitutionally infirm. The federal district court denied relief on
all grounds set out in Anderson’s habeas petition. On appeal, Anderson limits his
challenge to the constitutional validity of his death sentences, raising six claims
of constitutional error during the penalty phase of the state court proceedings. 1
1
Anderson raises on appeal the following six issues: (1) trial counsel failed
to properly investigate and present a constitutionally adequate case in mitigation
during the penalty phase of the trial; (2) he was denied fundamental fairness when
the trail court restricted voir dire regarding a potential juror’s ability to consider
all three possible punishment options should the jury eventually find Anderson
guilty on the murder charges; (3) his right to a fundamentally fair trial was
violated because his trial was held in a courtroom where a mural over the bench
depicted the biblical phrase “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”; (4) the
admission of irrelevant victim impact evidence during the penalty phase of the
(continued...)
-2-
He also asserts the federal district court erred in denying his request for discovery
and an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance claim.
Upon review, this court concludes Anderson has demonstrated he received
constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his
trial. 2 Having so concluded, it is unnecessary to address the other contentions
raised by Anderson on appeal. The order of the district court denying Anderson’s
§ 2254 habeas petition is hereby reversed and the matter is remanded to the
district court to grant the writ consistent with this opinion.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
The background facts leading to Anderson’s arrest and prosecution, as
summarized by the O CCA, are as follow s:
Between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. on September 28, 1996,
[Anderson] burst into the trailer home of M arvin M athesen
brandishing a firearm. [A nderson] told M athesen that they needed to
talk. Shortly thereafter, Richard Thornburg and Roger Embrey also
entered the trailer. Thornburg had been shot prior to this night and
1
(...continued)
trial rendered the sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair; (5) Oklahoma’s
continuing threat aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague and
overbroad; and (6) the prosecution failed to submit sufficient evidence in support
of the murder-committed-to-avoid-lawful-arrest aggravating circumstance.
2
Because the district court granted Anderson a certificate of appealability as
to each issue raised on appeal, this court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
-3-
the three wanted to question M athesen about the shooting. All three
men were armed and they told M athesen they were going to shoot
him if he lied to them. The three men also suspected Jim Poteet in
the shooting. They decided to question M athesen and Poteet together
so they could figure out whether M athesen or Poteet had shot
[Thornburg]. [3]
The three armed men forced M athesen out of his trailer at gun
point and drove him to Poteet’s residence. Once there, Thornburg
and Embrey went into the house and [Anderson] and M athesen stayed
in the car. W hen [Anderson] and M athesen heard gun shots come
from the house they went to see what had happened. They saw Terry
Shepard sitting in a chair by the bathroom door and Poteet sitting on
the bed in the back bedroom. Thornburg was holding Poteet at gun
point. Poteet had been shot in the foot and was bleeding between the
eyes.
[Anderson] suggested that Thornburg take M athesen and go
get any people present from Poteet’s rental house which was located
about seventy yards from Poteet’s residence. W hile they were
walking over to the rental house, Keith Smith walked up the
driveway. Thornburg forced Smith to knock on the door of the rental
house and when he did, Donnie Scott opened the door. Thornburg
then forced Scott, Smith and M athesen to w alk back to Poteet’s
residence.
Once back at Poteet’s house, Thornburg went back into the
bedroom with Poteet. Soon, Embrey took M athesen to the back
bedroom. In the bedroom, Thornburg gave M athesen a gun and told
him to shoot Poteet while [Anderson], Thornburg and Embrey all
pointed their guns at M athesen. A gunshot was fired from behind
M athesen and Poteet was shot in the side. The only person standing
behind M athesen at this time was Thornburg. Thornburg, [Anderson]
and Embrey then told M athesen to shoot another person or they
3
In this sentence of its factual summary, the OCCA refers to Anderson as
the person who had been shot prior to the evening of September 28, 1996. In a
prior sentence in the same paragraph, however, the OCCA refers to Thornburg as
the assailant who had previously been shot. Anderson v. State, 992 P.2d 409, 413
(Okla. Crim. App. 1999). As noted by the district court, the trial transcript makes
clear that Thornburg, not Anderson, was the individual that had been shot prior to
the night upon which Anderson, Thornburg, and Embrey participated in the
murders leading to Anderson’s prosecution.
-4-
would shoot M athesen. M athesen shot at Scott but the gun did not
fire. Thornburg made M athesen fire again while [Anderson] and
Embrey pointed their guns at him. This time M athesen shot Scott in
the chest. Embrey took M athesen outside to the car. W hile they
were at the car, M athesen heard more shots come from the house.
The house was burned and [Anderson], Thornburg, Embrey and
M athesen left the area in Thornburg’s car. They stopped to hide the
guns and let M athesen out of the car.
Shortly after 5:00 a.m. Loyd Keagans and his son, who were
driving by, noticed the burning house. As they drove up to the
house, they saw an injured man outside. This man was D onnie Scott,
who had been shot in the chest. The Keagans took Scott to a
convenience store and called the police. Scott survived the shooting
but the bodies of Jim Poteet, Keith Smith and Terry Shepard were
found in the burned house. Each of them had been shot and had
either died from gunshot wounds or a combination of gunshot
wounds and fire related injuries.
W hen Scott was able, he gave a statement to the police telling
what had happened. M athesen also told the authorities what had
happened. [A nderson], Embrey and Thornburg were subsequently
arrested.
Anderson, 992 P.2d at 413-14.
B. Procedural Background
The procedural history of Anderson’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel is unusual. Anderson did not raise on direct appeal or in his state
application for post-conviction relief a claim his counsel was constitutionally
ineffective for failing to develop an adequate case in mitigation during the penalty
phase of the trial. Instead, the issue w as raised for the first time in A nderson’s
§ 2254 habeas petition in federal court. Anderson argued the district court should
nevertheless decide this unexhausted issue on the merits because both direct
appeal counsel and state-provided post-conviction attorneys labored under an
-5-
actual conflict of interest which precluded him from receiving effective assistance
of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii) (providing an exception to the
general exhaustion requirement when “circumstances exist that render [state court
remedies] ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant”). In the alternative,
Anderson requested that the district court hold his § 2254 habeas petition in
abeyance so he could return to state court and exhaust his state court remedies.
In a written order, the district court denied Anderson’s request to decide the
unexhausted ineffective assistance claim on the merits and, instead, abated
Anderson’s habeas petition so he could return to state court and exhaust the
claim. In so doing, the district court began by noting
Although the arguments set forth by [Anderson] in this case
perhaps offer a basis for avoiding the procedural default rule, no
such rule has been applied by an Oklahoma court to the claim
presented in Ground One of the instant petition. [Anderson’s]
argument fails to establish the absence or insufficiency of any
available process by which he could raise the issue at this time.
Indeed, [Anderson] is not without recourse in an effort to exhaust the
unexhausted portion of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Anderson v. M ullin, No. CIV -01-177-M , slip op. at 3 (W .D. Okla. June 11, 2003).
The district court then went on to conclude there was a real possibility
Anderson’s claim would be addressed on the merits in state court and that Rule
9.7(G) of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals 4 provided a
4
Rule 9.7(G) provides that a second or successive application for post-
conviction relief can be considered by the OCCA to the extent such petition raises
(continued...)
-6-
procedural mechanism for Anderson to raise his ineffective assistance claim in
state court in a subsequent state application for post-conviction relief. Because of
what the district court perceived as a potential for availability of state process,
and because it was less than clear Anderson’s claim was procedurally barred, the
district court abated the case pending further proceedings in Oklahoma state
court.
After the district court abated Anderson’s federal habeas petition,
Anderson’s federal counsel made a special appearance in Oklahoma state court to
request the appointment of conflict-free counsel to represent Anderson in a
second application for post-conviction relief. Federal habeas counsel noted that
he was prohibited from providing substantive representation to Anderson in state
court because the scope of his representation was limited to the federal habeas
proceedings. He further indicated, however, that his special appearance was the
only feasible means to adequately call this matter to the state court’s attention. In
response to the motion, the Oklahoma D istrict Court of Grady County entered an
order appointing the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System (“OIDS”) to represent
4
(...continued)
claims in which the factual or legal basis was unavailable at the time of the filing
of the original application for post-conviction relief. Rules of the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals, Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 22, ch. 18, app. Subsection
9.7(G)(3) further provides, however, that such a claim shall not be considered
unless the successive application for post-conviction relief is filed within sixty
days “from the date the previously unavailable legal or factual basis serving as a
basis for the new issue is announced or discovered.” Id.
-7-
Anderson in pursuing a second application for post-conviction relief in the
OCCA. The order further provided that if the OIDS did not hire conflict-free
counsel to represent Anderson, the matter would be set for further hearing. The
OID S then hired Andrea M iller to represent Anderson in pursuing a second state
application for post-conviction relief.
M iller thereafter filed an Entry of Appearance and Notice to Court in the
OCCA (the “Notice”). 5 The Notice was filed in the OCCA on July 15, 2003,
approximately twenty months after Anderson filed his federal habeas petition and
approximately forty-three months after the OCCA denied Anderson’s initial
request for post-conviction relief. The N otice set out the procedural history
relating to M iller’s appointment, the underlying basis for Anderson’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of the trial, and the
facts indicating the O IDS may have been operating under a conflict of interest
when it represented Anderson on direct appeal and on his first application for
post-conviction relief. Based on the recency of her appointment, the voluminous
record, and the exceedingly complex nature of the issues involved, M iller asked
the OCCA to grant her additional time within which to review, investigate, and
prepare a successor petition for post conviction relief. The OCCA denied the
5
See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1089 (providing that application for post-
conviction relief where applicant is under penalty of death shall be filed directly
with OCCA).
-8-
request for additional time to prepare a second petition for post-conviction relief,
simply noting that any successor petition would be untimely under Rule 9.7(G)(3)
of the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. In light of the order of
the OCCA denying the extension on the basis of Rule 9.7(G)(3), both OIDS and
M iller concluded it would be futile to proceed further with M iller’s representation
of A nderson in state court proceedings.
Anderson then filed a M otion to Restore Case to Active Status and Proceed
to M erits Adjudication (the “M otion to Restore”) in federal district court. In the
M otion to Restore, Anderson argued he had exhausted his claim and that the
procedural bar applied by the OCCA, Rule 9.7(G)(3), was not sufficient to bar the
claim on federal habeas review because it was not regularly and consistently
applied. As to the matter of exhaustion, Anderson noted the order of the OCCA
denying M iller additional time to prepare a successor state application for post-
conviction relief made clear that no such application would be accepted because it
would be untimely under Rule 9.7(G)(3). The preemptive application of a
procedural bar rendered the actual filing of a second application for post-
conviction relief futile and fully exhausted available state court remedies. W ith
regard to the procedural bar, Anderson cited numerous instances in which the
OCCA had declined to apply the procedural bar set out in Rule 9.7(G)(3) in
situations similar to his. Because the OCCA had not applied the procedural bar
regularly and consistently in the vast majority of cases, Anderson argued Rule
-9-
9.7(G)(3) was not adequate to bar federal review of his claim of ineffective
assistance during the penalty phase of his state court trial. See Ford v. Georgia,
498 U.S. 411, 424 (1991); Johnson v. M ississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 587 (1988).
In its response to the M otion to Restore, Oklahoma simply averred that
Anderson had not properly exhausted his ineffective assistance claim as to the
penalty phase of the trial because he had not filed a second application for post-
conviction relief with the OCCA. Oklahoma supported this assertion with an
unusual argument: if, as Anderson alleged, the OCCA had applied Rule 9.7(G)(3)
in an inconsistent fashion, Anderson should be required to file a successor
application for state post-conviction relief, even in the face of the OCCA’s denial
of the request for time to prepare such an application, because the OCCA might
still exercise its discretion to review the application on the merits. Oklahoma did
not address or contradict, in any fashion, Anderson’s claim the OCCA had not
applied Rule 9.7(G)(3) in a regular or consistent fashion.
The district court was unconvinced by Oklahoma’s arguments regarding
exhaustion and procedural bar of Anderson’s ineffective assistance claim. The
district court began by noting that once exhaustion becomes futile, it is no longer
required. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B); James v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 543, 550 (10th
Cir. 2000). In its order denying M iller’s request for time to prepare a second
state application for post-conviction relief, the OCCA had clearly stated that any
such application would be barred by application of Rule 9.7(G)(3). Because it
-10-
would have been futile for Anderson to have proceeded to file a second
application for post-conviction relief in these circumstances, the district court
concluded Anderson’s claim of ineffective assistance during the penalty phase of
this trial was effectively exhausted or excused from exhaustion.
Having so concluded, the district court moved on to consider whether that
claim was procedurally barred. See James, 211 F.3d at 550 (“Even if failure to
exhaust is excused, however, . . . claims may otherw ise be procedurally barred.”).
The district court recognized the OCCA had treated the claim as procedurally
barred, pursuant to Rule 9.7(G)(3), in its order denying M iller time to prepare a
second state application. In his M otion to Restore, however, Anderson had placed
the adequacy of Rule 9.7(G)(3) at issue by citing numerous cases in which that
procedural bar was not evenhandedly applied. Thus, the burden was on Oklahoma
to prove the adequacy of Rule 9.7(G )(3). Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.3d 1206, 1217
(10th Cir. 1999). Because Oklahoma had never offered up a defense of the
adequacy of Rule 9.7(G), the district court ruled it was “unable to conclude that
Rule 9.7(G) is applied evenhandedly in the vast majority of cases.” Anderson,
No. CIV-01-177-M , slip op. at 43. Accordingly, the district court concluded
Anderson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was exhausted, but not
procedurally barred, and proceeded to decide the issue on the merits.
As to the merits, the district court applied the governing framew ork from
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and concluded Anderson was not
-11-
entitled to habeas relief. The district court first concluded trial counsel had
rendered deficient performance in failing to investigate and prepare an adequate
case in mitigation for the penalty phase of Anderson’s trial. Nevertheless, the
district court concluded Anderson had not demonstrated he was prejudiced by
counsel’s deficient performance. In particular, the district court concluded the
prosecution case was strong, Anderson had been found guilty of participating in
the murder of three individuals, and the jury had found the existence of three
aggravating circumstances. In light of these factors, the district court concluded
Anderson had not demonstrated a reasonable probability the outcome of the
penalty phase would have been different if the additional mitigation evidence
identified by Anderson would have been presented at trial.
Anderson appeals, asserting, inter alia, the district court erred in denying
him habeas relief on his claim of ineffective assistance during the penalty phase
of his trial.
III. D ISC USSIO N
A. Exhaustion/Procedural Bar
Oklahoma argues on appeal that Anderson’s ineffective assistance of trial
counsel claim is both unexhausted and procedurally barred. In particular,
Oklahoma asserts that to properly exhaust the claim, Anderson was required to
file a successive application for post-conviction relief raising such a claim in the
-12-
OCCA despite the OCCA’s denial of Anderson’s request for an extension to
prepare an application. Having failed to file such an application, Oklahoma
asserts the claim is not only unexhausted, but also subject to application of an
anticipatory procedural bar.
“There is a ‘strong presumption’ in favor of requiring exhaustion of state
remedies.” Beavers v. Saffle, 216 F.3d 918, 924 n.3 (10th Cir. 2000).
Nevertheless, this court has recognized a narrow exception to the exhaustion
requirement where “[f]urther state court proceedings would be futile.” Bear v.
Boone, 173 F.3d 782, 785 (10th Cir. 1999). A review of the order of the OCCA
denying Anderson’s request for time to prepare a successive application for post-
conviction relief demonstrates this is one of those unusual cases in which further
proceedings in state court would most assuredly have been futile. Accordingly,
Anderson was not required to file such an application to exhaust his state court
remedies.
As noted above, within a week of contracting with OIDS to represent
Anderson in the filing of a successive state application for post-conviction relief,
M iller filed the Notice in the OCCA setting out the complicated procedural
history of Anderson’s case and requesting time to prepare an adequate post-
conviction application raising the issue of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance
-13-
during the penalty phase of the trial. 6 In denying that request, the OCCA made
absolutely clear that because any such successor application Anderson could
potentially file in state court would be barred by application of Rule 9.7(G)(3), no
extension was necessary. In its order denying the Notice, the OCCA began by
noting that Anderson’s request for additional time to file a successive application
6
As an apparent corollary to its argument that Anderson did not exhaust his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he did not ultimately file a
successive application for post-conviction relief, Oklahoma asserts M iller was
obligated to file such an application immediately upon her appointment based
solely upon the material developed by federal habeas counsel. According to
Oklahoma, her failure to do so should weigh against a determination that actually
filing such a petition would have been futile. The problem with Oklahoma’s
assertion is two-fold. First, Oklahoma’s assertion M iller was obligated to proceed
with the filing of a successive application for post-conviction relief without
undertaking any investigation of the factual and/or legal basis of such an
application is squarely at odds with Oklahoma law. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22,
§ 1088.1(A) (providing that by “signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating”
an application for post-conviction relief, an attorney is certifying that “to the best
of the [attorney’s] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances,” that the factual assertions have evidentiary
support and the legal contentions are “warranted by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law
or the establishment of new law ”); id. § 1088.1(B) (providing for the imposition
of sanction on attorneys that fail to comply with the requirements of
§ 1088.1(A)). Second, as set out below, there is nothing in the order of the
OCCA denying the Notice indicating that if M iller proceeded in the manner
suggested by Oklahoma, the OCCA would have considered such an application on
the merits. Instead, it is absolutely clear that the O CCA denied M iller’s request
for time to adequately investigate and prepare a successive application for post-
conviction relief because any such application would be time barred under Rule
9.7(G)(3). M iller’s decision not to proceed on the reckless course now advocated
by Oklahoma has no bearing on the question whether it would have been futile to
file a successive application for post-conviction relief in light of the order of the
OCCA denying M iller’s request for adequate time to prepare such an application.
-14-
for post-conviction relief fell “under the authority of 22 O.S. 2001, § 1089(D)(2)
& (8) and Rule 9.7(G ), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Crim inal Appeals, Title
22, Ch. 18, app. (2002).” The OCCA further noted that under subsection three of
Rule 9.7(G), it would not consider a subsequent application for post-conviction
relief unless such application is filed within sixty days of the discovery of the
factual basis supporting the new claim for relief. W ith that as background, the
OCCA concluded as follow s:
The motion before this Court avers that Petitioner filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States D istrict Court
for the W estern District of Oklahoma and during the course of
preparing for his habeas petition, counsel found that trial counsel had
failed to investigate relevant mitigating evidence. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s habeas counsel requested the federal court excuse
Petitioner’s failure to raise the ineffective assistance of counsel issue
earlier. The federal judge issued an order holding the habeas petition
in abeyance pending exhaustion in state court of the unexhausted
claim. Accordingly, petitioner’s counsel has requested this Court to
grant him four months in which to review, investigate and prepare an
adequate successor post-conviction application.
Petitioner admits that the evidence he seeks to discover was
readily available and discoverable by direct appeal counsel. The
rules applicable to post-conviction, require filing within sixty days
“from the date the previously unavailable legal or factual basis
serving as the basis for a new issue is announced or discovered.”
Petitioner’s claim that he should be excused from this rule as failure
to review the potential claims would result in a miscarriage of justice
is not persuasive considering his federal court filings and nearly
three-year delay in filing for subsequent post-conviction relief.
Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a successor
application for post-conviction relief is hereby DENIED.
As this passage makes crystal clear, the O CCA denied A nderson’s request
for additional time to prepare an adequate successor application for post-
-15-
conviction relief because any such petition would be barred from review under the
terms of R ule 9.7(G )(3). Thus, there is a definitive ruling from the state court
that it will not review on the merits a successor application from Anderson raising
a claim that trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase for failing to
develop an adequate case in mitigation. Because Anderson was not required to
undertake a meaningless and utterly futile act to properly exhaust his state court
remedies, Beavers, 216 F.3d at 924 n.3; Bear, 173 F.3d at 785, this court rejects
Oklahoma’s contention that Anderson was required to nevertheless file a
successor application for post-conviction relief to exhaust his ineffective
assistance claim. Thus, like the district court, we conclude Anderson’s claim of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase is exhausted.
Having concluded Anderson’s ineffective assistance claim is exhausted,
this court must next consider whether the claim is nevertheless procedurally
barred. Clayton v. Gibson, 199 F.3d 1162, 1170 (10th Cir. 1999). The procedural
bar question is complicated, however, by Oklahoma’s dogged insistence that
Anderson’s ineffective assistance claim is unexhausted. Building on that faulty
foundation, Oklahoma further insists this court should apply an anticipatory
procedural bar 7 because Anderson’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial
7
“‘Anticipatory procedural bar’ occurs w hen the federal courts apply
procedural bar to an unexhausted claim that would be procedurally barred under
state law if the petitioner returned to state court to exhaust it.” M oore v.
(continued...)
-16-
counsel during the penalty phase of the trial would be procedurally barred under
Okla Stat. Ann tit. 22, §§ 1086, 1089(D )(2) 8 upon return to state court. See
Coleman v. Thom pson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 (1991).
The problem w ith Oklahoma’s argument is that, as detailed above,
Anderson’s claim of ineffective assistance is exhausted precisely because the
OCCA has clearly and unequivocally stated the claim is barred by Rule 9.7(G )(3).
The state procedural rule actually identified and applied by the OCCA to bar
review of Anderson’s claim is entirely distinct from the rule identified by
Oklahoma as potentially applying on an anticipatory basis. Because Oklahoma
has never countenanced the possibility that Anderson’s ineffective assistance
claim is actually exhausted or wavered from its position that the state procedural
bars set out in §§ 1086 and 1089(D)(2) should apply anticipatorily, it has never
addressed the adequacy of Rule 9.7(G)(3), the procedural bar actually applied by
the OCCA. But cf. Johnson, 486 U.S. at 587-89 (reviewing whether procedural
bar actually applied by state court was adequate to bar federal court habeas
review of a claim set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254). As did the district court, we
7
(...continued)
Schoeman, 288 F.3d 1231, 1233 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002).
8
These rules, taken together, provide that all grounds for relief, both those
actually known and those which should have been known through the exercise of
due diligence, must be brought in an initial application for post-conviction relief.
Any claims not asserted in compliance with this rule are thereafter waived. Okla.
Stat. Ann. tit. 22, §§ 1086, 1089(D)(2).
-17-
conclude Oklahoma’s refusal to defend the adequacy of the procedural bar
actually applied by the OCCA leaves this court with no choice but to proceed to
the merits of Anderson’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
“On habeas review, this court does not address issues that have been
defaulted in state court on an independent and adequate state procedural ground,
unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental
miscarriage of justice.” English v. Cody, 146 F.3d 1257, 1259 (10th Cir. 1998).
The independence of Rule 9.7(G)(3) is not at issue in this case. Anderson has,
however, challenged the adequacy of that rule. “[T]o be adequate, a state rule of
procedural default must be applied evenhandedly in the vast majority of cases.”
Id.; see also Johnson, 486 U.S. at 587 (holding that a state procedural rule in not
“adequate” to bar federal habeas review unless the rule “is strictly or regularly
followed” (quotations omitted)). “Because the effective assistance of counsel lies
at the very foundation of the adversary system of criminal justice, this court has
been particularly vigilant in scrutinizing the adequacy of state rules of procedural
default which have the effect of barring federal habeas review of claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel.” English, 146 F.3d at 1259.
Before the district court, Anderson cited multiple instances in which the
OCCA had declined to apply the procedural bar set out in Rule 9.7(G)(3) in
situations assertedly similar to his. Anderson also noted the OCCA had
previously held it had the power to grant relief, despite the plain time limits set
-18-
out in Rule 9.7(G)(3), when to do so was necessary to avoid a miscarriage of
justice. Valdez v. State, 46 P.3d 703, 710-11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). Taken
together, Anderson asserted these two facts rendered Rule 9.7(G)(3) inadequate to
bar federal habeas review of his ineffective assistance claim. English, 146 F.3d at
1259 (to be adequate to bar federal habeas review, a state procedural rule “must
be applied evenhandedly in the vast majority of cases”); Gutierrez v. M oriarty,
922 F.2d 1464, 1470 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that a state court’s assertion of
discretion to waive a procedural rule militates against concluding the rule is
adequate). Anderson reasserts these arguments on appeal.
Because Anderson came forward with specific allegations as to the
inadequacy of Rule 9.7(G)(3), the burden shifted to Oklahoma to prove the
adequacy of the Rule to bar federal habeas review. Hooks, 184 F.3d at 1217.
Oklahoma has made no attempt, either before the district court or this court, to
defend the adequacy of Rule 9.7(G)(3). Accordingly, under the particular
circumstances of this case, we conclude Rule 9.7(G)(3) is not adequate to bar
federal habeas review of A nderson’s claim of ineffective assistance. Thus, we
proceed to the merits of the claim. 9
9
Even if Oklahoma w as correct in asserting that §§ 1086 and 1089(D)(2)
should apply anticipatorily, a substantial question would remain as to whether
those separate procedural rules are themselves adequate to bar review of
Anderson’s claim. In addition to considering a state procedural bar inadequate
when it is inconsistently applied, this court also considers a state procedural bar
(continued...)
-19-
9
(...continued)
inadequate if “it deprives a defendant of any meaningful review of his claims.”
Spears v. M ullin, 343 F.3d 1215, 1253-54 (10th Cir. 2003). A defendant has no
opportunity for meaningful review of an asserted ground for relief if the ground
could not have been raised within a state’s procedural rules. Here, Oklahoma’s
procedural rules bar post-conviction relief of any claims that were not raised on
direct appeal, see Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1086, as w ell as any claims that were
not raised in an initial application for post-conviction relief. See id. §§ 1086,
1089(D)(2). On the facts before this court, there is a serious question whether
Anderson could have raised his ineffective trial counsel argument within these
rules.
Anderson argues persuasively that he could not have raised this ground on
direct appeal or in his first habeas petition because his appellate counsel operated
under a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest arose because A nderson’s
appellate and post-conviction counsel represented both Anderson and his co-
defendant, Thornburg. As a result of this co-representation, Anderson’s
appellate/post-conviction counsel were bound by a duty to Thornburg that
precluded them from effectively representing Anderson by, for example,
presenting a relative culpability theory based on Anderson’s limited mental
abilities.
Two cases are instructive. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980);
Jennings v. Purkett, 7 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1993). In Cuyler, the Supreme Court
held that a “conflict itself demonstrat[es] a denial of the right to have the
effective assistance of counsel.” 446 U.S. at 349 (quotation omitted). “Thus, a
defendant who shows that a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of
his representation need not demonstrate prejudice in order to obtain relief.” Id. at
349-50. There is no concomitant constitutional right to effective assistance of
post-conviction counsel, see Coleman v. Thom pson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991), but
there is a constitutional right to effective counsel on direct appeal when a state
provides for an appeal. Because a defendant bears the risk of attorney error that
results in a procedural default at the post-conviction stage, ineffective assistance
of post-conviction counsel cannot excuse a state procedural bar. See id. at 752-
54. The Eighth Circuit, however, has held that “[a]n attorney’s conflict of
interest,” potentially including a post-conviction counsel’s conflict, “may be
external to his client’s defense, and thus a basis for finding cause” to excuse
procedural default. See Jennings, 7 F.3d at 782.
Here, it appears A nderson’s appellate and post-conviction counsel actively
represented conflicting interests by representing both Anderson and Thornburg.
(continued...)
-20-
B. M erits
A claim by a habeas petitioner “that counsel’s assistance was so defective
as to require reversal of a . . . death sentence has two components.” Strickland,
466 U.S. at 687. “To be entitled to relief, a petitioner must prove both that his
counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance
prejudiced his defense.” Bryan v. M ullin, 335 F.3d 1207, 1216 (10th Cir. 2003)
(en banc).
To carry his burden of demonstrating that counsel’s performance was
deficient, a petitioner must show that counsel made errors so serious
that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the
defendant by the Sixth Amendment. To carry his burden of
demonstrating prejudice, a petitioner must show that counsel’s errors
were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial
whose result is reliable.
Id. (quotations and citations omitted). This court is “particularly vigilant” in
ensuring the right to effective assistance of counsel when a defendant is subject to
a sentence of death. Smith v. M ullin, 379 F.3d 919, 938 (10th Cir. 2004); see also
William son v. Ward, 110 F.3d 1508, 1514 (10th Cir. 1997) (“In assessing
9
(...continued)
This conflict of interest may very well have prevented Anderson from raising his
ineffective trial counsel claim on direct appeal or in an application for post-
conviction relief and, consequently, within Oklahoma’s procedural rules.
Therefore, a strong argument can be made that those rules deprived Anderson of
any meaningful review of that claim. This court need not definitively decide this
issue, however, because, as noted above, the procedural rule actually applied by
the OCCA is not effective to bar review of Anderson’s claim.
-21-
counsel’s conduct, we are mindful of the Supreme Court’s observation that ‘[o]ur
duty to search for constitutional error w ith painstaking care is never more
exacting than it is in a capital case.’” (quoting Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 785
(1987)).
Because Anderson’s ineffective assistance claim was not decided on the
merits by the OCCA, and because it is not procedurally barred, federal habeas
review of the claim is de novo. Torres v. Lytle, 461 F.3d 1303, 1311 (10th Cir.
2006). Upon de novo review, the district court concluded that although
Anderson’s trial counsel rendered constitutionally deficient performance during
the penalty phase of the trial, Anderson did not suffer prejudice as a result of the
deficient performance. “[T]his court . . . reviews de novo whether counsel’s
performance was legally deficient and whether the deficiencies prejudiced the
[petitioner].” Bryan, 335 F.3d at 1216. As the district court did not conduct an
evidentiary hearing, but instead decided the case on the record presented by the
parties, this court independently reviews the facts relating to counsel’s
performance and prejudice. Allen v. M ullin, 368 F.3d 1220, 1234 (10th Cir.
2004).
1. Performance
“The sentencing stage is the most critical phase of a death penalty case.
Any competent counsel knows the importance of thoroughly investigating and
-22-
presenting mitigating evidence.” Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1180 (10th
Cir. 2001). To perform adequately in a capital case, trial counsel must undertake
“‘to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence and evidence to rebut
any aggravating evidence that may be introduced by the prosecutor.’” Wiggins v.
Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 524 (2003) (quoting ABA Guidelines for the Appointment
and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases 11.4.1(C) (1989) [hereinafter
1989 Guidelines]); see also ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and
Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases 10.7(A) (2003) [hereinafter 2003
Guidelines]. Counsel should consider, inter alia, medical history, educational
history, social and family history, religious and cultural influences, and
employment. See 2003 Guidelines 10.7, Commentary.
Anderson contends trial counsel wholly failed to investigate potential
mitigation evidence, instead focusing almost exclusively on the guilt phase of the
trial. The result, according to Anderson was that trial counsel failed to adduce at
trial substantial amounts of mitigating evidence and failed to adequately rebut the
case in aggravation presented by the prosecution. The district court agreed,
concluding “the investigation conducted in preparation for the second phase of
[Anderson’s] trial fell below prevailing professional norms.” Anderson, No. C IV -
01-177-M , slip op. at 48. “[C]ognizant of the overwhelming importance of the
role mitigation evidence plays in the just imposition of the death penalty,” Smith,
379 F.3d at 939, this court agrees with the district court and concludes trial
-23-
counsel’s failure to investigate and discover readily available mitigation evidence
amounted to constitutionally deficient performance.
Although trial counsel was provided with two investigators, one of whom
was dedicated to investigating the case in mitigation, the evidence before the
district court reveals trial counsel directed his attention almost exclusively to the
guilt phase of the trial. Dennis Berglan, the guilt phase investigator, met with
trial counsel on many occasions, detailed his investigation in extensive reports to
trial counsel, and personally met with Anderson on numerous occasions. In
contrast, James Grace, the penalty phase investigator, spent only twenty-three
hours in substantive investigation, all of which was undertaken in the month
before trial. But see 2003 Guidelines 10.7 Commentary (“The mitigation
investigation should begin as quickly as possible, because it may affect the
investigation of first phase defenses . . . , decisions about the need for expert
evaluations . . . , motion practice, and plea negotiations.”). Trial counsel did not
have Grace interview Anderson. 10 But see id. (“[I]mmediately upon counsel’s
10
Grace found this aspect of his investigation particularly troubling.
According to Grace,
In order to obtain [] life history information, it is essential to
conduct a number of detailed meetings with the client. Initially and
throughout the course of the case, it is important to develop and
maintain a rapport with the client to instill trust. The development of
this trust is critical in order for the mitigation investigator to draw
out vital information about the client’s upbringing, which often
includes sensitive and sometimes embarrassing facts that are relevant
(continued...)
-24-
entry into the case appropriate member(s) of the defense teams should meet with
the client” to begin to build a case in mitigation). Grace did not have access to
life-history information, school records, or medical records. But see id.
(specifically noting the relevance and importance of each of these avenues of
investigation). Anderson was not evaluated by any mental health or other expert
qualified to ascertain whether Anderson suffered from neurological or other
deficits that would mitigate his moral culpability. Smith, 379 F.3d at 942 (noting
the “vital importance” of mental health evidence “to the jury’s decision at the
punishment phase” (quoting 2003 Guidelines 1.1, 4.1, 10.4, 10.7, 10.11)).
Ultimately, based on his extensive experience in conducting mitigation
investigations in death penalty cases, Grace concluded he had “never had an
experience like [he] had while working on [Anderson’s] case. The mitigation
investigation that [he] was conducted to do by [trial counsel] was minimal at best
and in [his] opinion was wholly inadequate.”
The evidence submitted to the district court demonstrates mitigation
evidence of the kind and magnitude identified as particularly important in the
cases and 1989 and 2003 Guidelines w as readily available and discoverable
through a reasonable investigation. The record developed on habeas review
reveals as follow s:
10
(...continued)
to the client’s character and personality.
-25-
1. Family History. Anderson was raised in an environment of neglect and
abuse. He was the twelfth of thirteen children. By the time he was born, his
parents lacked interest in raising their children. Instead, they turned to their own
addictions to alcohol, leaving Anderson’s older siblings to provide what care they
could. Anderson’s mother was abusive to both her children and husband. To
discipline the children, including Anderson, she w ould “w hip [them ] with hangers
and extension cords.” Anderson’s mother and step-father engaged in “horrible
drunken fights” in front of the children. Anderson’s mother, who was eleven
years younger than Anderson’s father, eventually grew bored of her role as
homemaker and began having illicit affairs in the family home. M en from the
nearby Air Force base, referred to as the Anderson children’s “uncles,” w ould
come to the family home to have sex with Anderson’s mother, while A nderson’s
father w as at work. The illicit affairs led all the Anderson children, from an early
age, to question their parentage; these questions undermined the children’s sense
of security and self-esteem.
2. M ental Health History. Anderson suffers from brain damage. He is
“borderline mentally defective” with full scale IQ scores in the 70s. Because of
his brain damage, Anderson functions below 97 to 98% of the general population.
Anderson’s brain damage likely resulted from multiple etiologies: (a) abuse of
inhalants by sniffing paint as a child; (b) abuse of alcohol from the time he w as 9
years old; (c) abuse of marijuana and other drugs from the time he w as 9 years
-26-
old; (d) chronic addiction to and abuse of methamphetamine; and (e) repeated
head injuries as a child and as an adult, a number of which resulted in periods of
unconsciousness. Anderson’s brain deficits affect his reasoning, problem solving,
and judgment. These deficits can be perceived by lay persons as “meanness” or
antisocial behavior, but with expert evaluation and explanation are properly
explained as deriving from disruption and impairments to the nervous system.
3. Drug Usage. Use of methamphetamine would serve to exacerbate
Anderson’s existing deficits and impairments. Anderson, however, attempted to
overcome his addiction to methamphetamine twice without the benefit of formal
treatment or counseling. One of these episodes came about as part of a serious
religious conversion and was in association with consideration on the part of
Anderson about becoming a preacher. Nevertheless, his co-dependent
relationship with his wife, who never gave up her use of methamphetamine,
eventually caused him to relapse into drug abuse.
As the various iterations of the ABA Guidelines and Wiggins make clear,
this is just the kind of mitigation evidence trial counsel is obligated to investigate
and develop as part of building an effective case in mitigation during the penalty
phase of a trial. 2003 Guidelines 10.7; Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 522, 524. Berglan’s
and Grace’s declarations reveal, however, that trial counsel undertook only the
most rudimentary investigation of Anderson’s background, choosing to focus his
investigatory efforts almost exclusively on the guilt phase of the trial. As a
-27-
result, counsel was unable to muster an adequate defense to the prosecution’s case
in aggravation. Instead, trial counsel was limited to presenting to the jury: (1)
evidence that although Anderson had a drug and alcohol problem, he had worked
and provided for his family; (2) he was the son of a “good woman” and had a
family that loved him; (3) his daughter loved him and he could be of help to her
from prison. Thus, rather than offering the jury a potential explanation for
Anderson’s actions relating to the murders he participated in, trial counsel’s case
in mitigation was limited to a simple plea for mercy. Smith, 379 F.3d at 943
(noting importance of mitigation evidence that explains to the jury why a
defendant acted as he did); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 415 (2000)
(O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting importance of presenting case in mitigation
centered on a defendant’s “unique personal circumstances,” as opposed to a
generic request for mercy). Like the district court, we have no difficulty
concluding trial counsel’s failure to investigate and obtain the readily available
evidence in mitigation set out above, and the concomitant necessity of presenting
only the most skeletal case in mitigation, fell well below the prevailing
professional norms and amounted to deficient performance.
In response, Oklahoma simply asserts that because Anderson did not
proffer an affidavit from trial counsel concerning what investigation might have
been conducted apart from that performed by Grace, Anderson failed to overcome
the presumption that trial counsel’s case in mitigation fell within the wide range
-28-
of reasonable professional assistance. 11 Oklahoma’s assertion is wrong both as a
m atter of fact and as a matter of law.
The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the notion that, when counsel has
“som e information with respect to petitioner’s background,” counsel has
necessarily fulfilled his constitutional duty to investigate and present a case in
mitigation. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527. M oreover, although Oklahoma is quite
correct in asserting that “strategic choices made after thorough investigation of
law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable,”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, the question in this particular case is not whether trial
counsel made a tactical or strategic decision not to include the omitted mitigation
evidence at trial, but rather whether “the investigation supporting counsel’s
decision . . . was itself reasonable.” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 523.
11
Surprisingly, the entirety of Oklahoma’s briefing on the question of trial
counsel’s performance amounts to less than a single paragraph. According to
Oklahoma,
[Anderson’s] assertion that there was an inadequate investigation is
speculation where he did not proffer an affidavit from trial counsel
concerning what investigation he conducted apart from that done by
his investigator. He cannot show that lack of sufficient information
rendered any strategic decisions as to what mitigating evidence to
present deficient performance, especially where he has the burden to
overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s strategy and tactics
fell w ithin the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.
Appellant’s Br. at 27.
-29-
The only evidence in the record is that Anderson’s family background,
mental health, and neurological health were never investigated by trial counsel.
As noted above, Grace’s affidavit details the extremely limited investigation he
conducted on behalf of counsel in the month before the trial. Grace’s declaration
does not, however, stand alone. The record also contains a declaration by Kim
M arks, an investigator w ith the Federal Public D efender’s Office in the W estern
District of Oklahoma. M arks’ declaration demonstrates he has extensive
experience in investigating mitigating evidence in death penalty cases. M arks
examined trial counsel’s records; that examination revealed no educational
records, medical records, or psychological evaluations w ere gathered in
preparation for trial. Taken together, the declarations of Grace and M arks make
clear that trial counsel simply did not undertake an investigation into potential
evidence in mitigation sufficient to satisfy the prevailing norms in the profession
as set out in the 1989 or 2003 Guidelines. Trial counsel did not undertake a
strategic decision in this case to omit the mitigation evidence identified above;
counsel simply did not investigate and therefore did not know such evidence was
available. See Hooper v. M ullin, 314 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (10th Cir. 2002)
(failure to pursue reasonable avenues of investigation without any idea of what
the investigation might reveal was not an informed strategic decision and required
relief from sentence of death); Pavel v. Hollins, 261 F.3d 210, 218 n.11 (2d Cir.
2001) (collecting cases and discussing how decisions made in ignorance of
-30-
relevant facts and law cannot be characterized as strategic under Strickland);
Bouchillon v. Collins, 907 F.2d 589, 597 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Tactical decisions must
be made in the context of a reasonable amount of investigation, not in a
vacuum.”); Profitt v. Waldron, 831 F.2d 1245, 1249 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that
the “usual deference to tactical decisions is not relevant” when the decisions are
based on “information that was faulty because of . . . ineffective investigatory
steps”).
2. Prejudice
Based on the strength of the state’s case, Anderson’s convictions for
participating in three murders, and the jury’s findings of the existence of three
aggravating circumstances, the district court concluded Anderson was not
prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to investigate and present an adequate case in
mitigation during the penalty phase of the trial.
In considering Strickland’s prejudice prong, “w e evaluate the totality
of the evidence— both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced
in habeas proceedings.” Wiggins, 123 S. Ct. at 2543 (italics,
quotations, and citations omitted). In order to grant relief, we must
discern a reasonable probability that the jury would have concluded
the “balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not
warrant death.” M ayes, 210 F.3d at 1290. A “reasonable
probability” is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but
“sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Fisher, 282
F.3d at 1307 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052).
Smith, 379 F.3d at 942. Taking guidance from the Supreme Court’s decisions in
Wiggins and William s, and from this court’s decision in Smith, we disagree with
-31-
the district court and conclude Anderson has demonstrated a reasonable
probability that but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the
penalty phase would have been different.
There is no doubt that the multiple murders in this case were callous and
brutal. The district court was also correct in noting that the case against
Anderson on the question of guilt was strong, and included information that
Anderson had corresponded with his wife about keeping potential witnesses away
from the trial or “taking care” of them. In fact, the strength of the prosecution’s
case during the guilt phase left no room for the question of residual doubt during
the penalty phase. In addition to all of the first stage evidence, the prosecution
adduced testimony during the penalty phase that while incarcerated awaiting trial
on the murder charges, Anderson had obtained illegal drugs and had been found
in possession of a knife. It is similarly true that among the three murders, the
jury found the existence of three aggravating circumstances: (1) the murders were
especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; (2) there was a probability Anderson
would comm it future criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing
threat to society; and (3) that the murders of Smith and Shepard were committed
for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution.
Against this backdrop, trial counsel mounted an extraordinarily limited case
in mitigation. As noted above, trial counsel adduced the testimony of A nderson’s
family and co-workers to support the theory that Anderson was a kind, hard-
-32-
working, normal man who could be of some help to his daughter if his life w ere
spared. Unfortunately, the case in mitigation presented by trial counsel played
into the prosecution’s theory that the only explanation for the murders was that
Anderson was simply an “evil” man. The prosecution seized on A nderson’s case
in mitigation to assert during closing arguments that there was no excuse for
Anderson’s conduct because he grew up in a “good family” and was never abused
as a child. Thus, relying on the exceedingly limited nature of trial counsel’s case
in mitigation, the prosecution was able to argue convincingly to the jury that there
was nothing in the case to diminish A nderson’s moral culpability for the murders.
As set out at length above, however, there existed readily available
evidence which could have both explained to the jury the reasons Anderson was
predisposed to act in concert with Thornburg and Embrey on the night of the
murders and demonstrated Anderson was less morally culpable than the average
defendant for committing the murders. In particular, Anderson grew up in
poverty, the twelfth child of a physically and emotionally abusive mother.
Anderson’s mother’s disregard for her marriage and inattention to her children
created “dysfunctional patterns in their development, including a pattern of
dropping out of school, a pattern of leaving home at an early age, and a pattern of
teenage pregnancy and/or marriage before the age of 18.” The jury would have
learned that Anderson’s life followed each of these patterns. The evidence
developed by habeas counsel demonstrates Anderson suffers from brain damage;
-33-
is “borderline mentally defective”; and functions below the bottom two percent of
the general population. Anderson was only able to complete the eighth grade of
school. The most significant damage to Anderson’s brain is in the area of the
frontal lobe, the area of the brain that affects reasoning, problem solving, and
judgment. Anderson has suffered chronic drug addiction, which addiction began
at the age of nine with the use of alcohol, marijuana, and inhalants and ultimately
progressed to the use of methamphetamine. The use of amphetamines exacerbates
Anderson’s mental deficits and impairments. Anderson has tried to overcome his
addiction to methamphetamine, but without the support of his w ife those efforts
ultimately failed. Despite these serious impairments, Anderson had no history of
criminal violence prior to the murders in question. Likewise, his family
considered him a loving man, who always cared for his family and children and
worked hard to support them.
In Smith, this court noted that this type of evidence “is exactly the sort of
evidence that garners the most sympathy from jurors.” 379 F.3d at 942 (citing
both empirical evidence and case law). The Supreme Court has similarly noted
that evidence of borderline mental retardation and childhood poverty and abuse
are highly relevant to the question of moral culpability. Williams, 529 U.S. at
398; see also Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319 (1989) (“[E]vidence about the
defendant’s background and character is relevant because of the belief, long held
by this society, that defendants who comm it criminal acts that are attributable to a
-34-
disadvantaged background, or to emotional and mental problems may be less
culpable than defendants who have no such excuse.” (quotation omitted)),
overruled on other grounds by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002); Wiggins,
539 U.S. at 535 (quoting Penry). Evidence of the type set out above serves to
humanize a defendant and explain why an otherwise kind and loving family man
can come to participate in a violent, murderous event. See Smith, 379 F.3d at
943. Accordingly, this court cannot overstate the importance of the type of
evidence that was available in this case but was never presented to the jury.
In this particular case, the absence of this readily available mitigation
evidence left the jury with no explanation for the murders other than the
prosecution’s assertion Anderson was “evil.” Although the case against Anderson
was strong and the murders in this case were horrific, courts have not hesitated to
grant relief in similar circumstances where the absence of available mitigation
evidence left the jury with a “pitifully incomplete” picture of the defendant. Id.
at 944 (discussing William s and Wiggins). Had the jury been presented a
complete picture of Anderson’s background and history, there is a reasonable
probability at least one juror would have struck a different balance between the
mitigating and aggravating factors. See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.11 (providing
that the jury must be unanimous to impose the death penalty). Accordingly,
Anderson has carried his burden of demonstrating he received ineffective
-35-
assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his trial and is entitled to
relief under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
IV . C ON CLU SIO N
The order of the district court denying Anderson’s writ of habeas corpus as
to his death sentence is hereby REVERSED. The matter is remanded to the
district court to grant the writ with regard to Anderson’s death sentence and order
Oklahoma to resentence Anderson within a reasonable time of the issuance of the
judgment.
-36-