Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 1 of 35
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10516
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-00796-JSM-AEP
JOHN TROY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 15, 2014)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
John Troy, a Florida prisoner sentenced to die for the murder of Bonnie
Carroll, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. During the penalty phase of trial, the state
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 2 of 35
court excluded testimony from corrections officer Michael Galemore about general
conditions in Florida prisons for those serving life sentences, including the nature
of custody and the availability of illegal drugs. Galemore had never met Troy and
had no firsthand knowledge of his character, record, or conduct. Still, Troy argues
that this exclusion violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right to present
mitigation evidence bearing on his capacity for rehabilitation and his ability to
contribute in prison, see Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 114 (1982), as well
as his Fourteenth Amendment right to present a complete defense by rebutting
cross-examination, see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986). The Florida
Supreme Court rejected these arguments on direct appeal, as did the federal district
court on collateral review.
We affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Though a capital
sentencer must be allowed to consider relevant mitigating evidence, the Supreme
Court has refused to limit “the traditional authority of a court to exclude, as
irrelevant, evidence not bearing on the defendant’s character, prior record, or the
circumstances of his offense.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 605 n.12 (1978).
Similarly, while the Fourteenth Amendment ensures a meaningful opportunity to
present a complete defense, state courts may “exclude evidence through the
application of evidentiary rules that themselves serve the interests of fairness and
reliability.” Crane, 476 U.S. at 690. Galemore would have said nothing about
2
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 3 of 35
Troy’s character, conduct, or individual qualities, and could only have guessed
about Troy’s potential conditions of imprisonment. Thus, the Florida Supreme
Court did not act contrary to and did not unreasonably apply clearly established
Supreme Court law when it denied relief on the ground that Galemore’s testimony
was irrelevant and speculative. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Moreover, even if the decision to exclude Galemore’s testimony had been
error, it would have been harmless because Troy has not established that keeping
out Galemore’s testimony “had substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the
jury’s death recommendation. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993)
(quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)). Troy, a convicted
violent felon on probation in two states, committed a grisly slaying in the course of
a robbery and sexual assault. The extensive mitigating evidence presented --
including testimony about Troy’s drug use, his troubled background, and his
constructive conduct during previous prison terms -- did not come close to
balancing the powerful aggravators. We see no reason to suspect that the jury,
which voted eleven to one for death, would have made a different recommendation
had Galemore testified.
I.
When it rejected on direct appeal Troy’s arguments about the exclusion of
Galemore’s testimony, the Florida Supreme Court found the following essential
3
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 4 of 35
facts. See Troy v. State, 948 So. 2d 635, 638-42 (Fla. 2006) (per curiam). John
Troy was charged with first degree murder, armed burglary, armed robbery, and
attempted sexual battery with a weapon for his fatal attack of Bonnie Carroll. Troy
was also charged with the armed burglary, aggravated battery, armed kidnapping,
and armed robbery of Traci Burchette.
Evidence presented at the guilt phase of the trial established that John Troy
had lived with his mother and girlfriend in the same apartment complex as Bonnie
Carroll since his release from prison on July 25, 2001. Troy, who had been serving
a sentence for armed robbery, was placed on conditional release that required
regular drug testing. After Troy told his probation officer that he had smoked
marijuana in prison, his first scheduled drug test was delayed until September 11,
2001. When Troy tested positive for cocaine that day, his probation officer told
him that he would be re-incarcerated. That night, as the nation mourned an
unspeakable tragedy, John Troy committed murder.
Upon failing the drug test, Troy returned to his apartment and began to argue
with his girlfriend. He left with a kitchen knife and did not return. He visited
Melanie Kozak, with whom he used cocaine a total of four times on September 11
and 12 -- three times before the murder and once after. At approximately 12:30
a.m. on September 12, Troy pounded on the sliding glass door of a neighbor,
Karen Curry, who called police and did not let him in. Between his 12:30 a.m.
4
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 5 of 35
encounter with Curry and a 2:00 a.m. visit to Kozak, Troy killed Bonnie Carroll.
Carroll’s naked body was found in her Sarasota, Florida, apartment in the
late afternoon of September 12, 2001. She had numerous stab wounds to the front
of her body, large neck incisions, and blunt force injuries around her face. An
electrical cord was tied around her thigh and a cloth was slung around her neck.
An autopsy revealed a bloody, folded piece of cloth had been wedged in the back
of her throat when she was still alive. The cloth around her neck and petechial
hemorrhages in her eyes possibly indicated strangulation. Carroll showed small,
fresh injuries to her external genitalia and thighs, though there were no internal
injuries and no identified semen. A medical examiner testified that the evidence
was consistent with an assailant attempting to sexually batter the victim before she
was killed. An X-ray showed a knife blade broken off inside Carroll’s body. A
matching, bladeless knife handle recovered from the countertop in her bathroom
contained the blood of Carroll and Troy. Carroll’s blood was also present on a
steak knife found near her body. Tests showed no drugs in Carroll’s system. Her
blood alcohol level, 0.037, was consistent with having a glass of wine. In total,
Carroll suffered at least fifty-four injuries, including forty-four stab wounds, three
incise wounds to the neck, seven impact injuries to the face, and multiple defense
wounds on her hands.
After killing Carroll, Troy visited Kozak, again used cocaine, and left to
5
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 6 of 35
drive around in Carroll’s car. He showed up at the home of Traci Burchette, a
friend of Troy’s mother, at approximately 6:30 a.m. Troy picked up a two-by-four
board in her backyard before knocking on Burchette’s door. He told her his car
had broken down and pretended to call a friend. She made him coffee and, at
Troy’s request, leaned down to turn on her computer. Without warning he attacked
from behind, breaking her knuckles and fracturing her skull. Troy bound and
gagged Burchette and stole her car keys and ATM card. Troy tried to use her
ATM card at a bank at 8:24 a.m. and then headed south on Interstate 75 toward
Naples, Florida. Burchette managed to contact police and give a description of her
car and her assailant. Police in Naples stopped Troy in the midafternoon of
September 12 in Burchette’s car with a female passenger.
When arrested, Troy was wearing tennis shoes that contained Carroll’s
blood, blue jeans with blood from both Carroll and Burchette, and a T-shirt with
Burchette’s blood. Tests of Carroll’s fingernails showed Troy’s DNA. A shard of
broken glass found next to Carroll in her bedroom tested positive for Troy’s blood.
A drinking glass on Carroll’s kitchen counter contained Troy’s fingerprint. Police
found the two-by-four board with Burchette’s blood along the highway near Fort
Myers.
At trial, Troy’s counsel acknowledged that Troy had killed Carroll and
attacked Burchette. He argued for second-degree murder on the ground that the
6
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 7 of 35
killing was not premeditated or done during the commission of a felony. The
defense put on evidence that Carroll had invited Troy in, that the two had been
socializing before their argument, and that Troy used drugs in her apartment.
Despite Troy’s defense, the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and all
other charges.
During the penalty phase, the prosecution highlighted Troy’s four prior
felony convictions (three for armed robbery and one for aggravated assault with a
weapon) and his contemporaneous convictions for the attack on Burchette. The
State established that Troy was on probation in both Florida and Tennessee.
Prosecutors also presented three victim impact statements.
Troy offered extensive penalty-phase mitigation evidence, stressing his
childhood and background, his behavior in and adaptation to prison, his potential
for rehabilitation if given a life sentence, and the effect of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, on Troy’s explosion of violence. In all, he called twenty-nine
mitigation witnesses. Numerous family members and character witnesses testified
for Troy, as did Dr. Michael Maher, a clinical and forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Maher
testified about Troy’s unstable, abusive childhood; the sexual molestation of Troy
at age thirteen by a male teacher, including the isolation endured by Troy after he
testified at the teacher’s trial; Troy’s arrested psychological development; his
lifelong depression; his chronic drug addiction; Troy’s response to the September
7
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 8 of 35
11 attacks; and his acute intoxication during Carroll’s murder.
As part of the defense’s mitigation case during the penalty phase, Troy
proffered testimony from Michael Galemore, an assistant warden at the Polk
County Correctional Institution. Troy’s counsel admitted to the court that
Galemore had no personal contact with the defendant and knew none of the facts
of his particular case. Still, Troy intended to call Galemore to testify that a
prisoner serving a life sentence without possibility of parole would be held in
“close custody,” where he “would be supervised in a particular fashion,” “would
work in prison,” and “would have to follow the rules of the prison.” Troy’s
counsel also stated that Galemore would testify about drugs in prison and inmate
leadership. Finally, Galemore would testify about the conditions of confinement
on death row: “that you are basically locked into your cell and you don’t work.”
The State objected to the presentation of Galemore’s testimony on the
grounds that it was irrelevant to any statutory or nonstatutory mitigating factors
and speculative because Galemore had never met Troy and did not know where he
would serve his sentence. The trial court sustained the State’s objection and barred
Galemore’s testimony.
By a vote of eleven to one, the jury recommended Troy be put to death. At
8
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 9 of 35
the Spencer hearing,1 defense counsel called a detective who had taken a
previously suppressed confession from Troy to establish that Troy had accepted
responsibility and expressed remorse for his crimes. On cross-examination, the
judge allowed the State to inquire into the details of the confession. Troy had told
the detective that he tied Carroll with an extension cord and knew she would call
police if released. The two began fighting when Carroll made disparaging remarks
about Troy’s girlfriend. To quiet her, Troy said he shoved something in her mouth.
Troy also said he asked Carroll if she wanted to have sex, and she assented. When
Carroll got her hands free, the two began to fight. Troy stabbed her with a knife
and broken glass. Troy stated he brought one knife with him and found the other
in Carroll’s kitchen. After Troy thought he had killed her, he went to the kitchen
to get money and keys from her purse. When he returned to find her alive and
struggling to sit up, Troy cut her throat. Troy denied committing sexual battery but
admitted that he took Carroll into the bathroom to “clean her up” before sex and
that, because he tied her hands and feet, he had to cut off her clothing. Troy told
the detective that he had taken heroin, cocaine, and Paxil the night of the murder.
(The trial court ultimately found that at the time of the attack Troy had been under
the influence of marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine, but not Paxil or heroin.) Troy
1
Under Florida law, a Spencer hearing gives the defendant, his counsel, and the State the
opportunity to be heard and to present additional evidence to the sentencing judge after the jury
has offered its recommendation. See Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688, 681 (Fla. 1993) (per
curiam).
9
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 10 of 35
said he was repulsed by what he had done, but he did not cry as he calmly
confessed.
Troy offered allocutions of remorse at the Spencer hearing to the court and
to Burchette. Though he had prepared one for Carroll’s family, they requested he
not give it. The trial court adopted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Troy
to death. The court found four statutory aggravating factors: (1) the murder was
especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (great weight); (2) Troy was previously
convicted of felonies involving the use or threat of violence (considerable weight);
(3) Troy committed the murder while on felony probation (considerable weight);
and (4) Troy committed the murder during the commission or the attempt to
commit a robbery or sexual battery (considerable weight). The trial court also
found that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain, but noted that
considering this aggravator alongside the robbery factor would amount to double-
counting.
The trial court found two statutory mitigating circumstances: impaired
capacity (great weight) and extreme mental or emotional disturbance (moderate
weight). The court found fifteen nonstatutory mitigating factors, including: Troy’s
dysfunctional family background; his positive personal characteristics and actions,
as shown when he protected a correctional officer who had been a childhood friend
during a prison incident; Troy’s sexual molestation; his “triple addiction” to
10
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 11 of 35
alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana; his lifelong mental and emotional problems; his
potential for positive contributions if sentenced to life in prison; his expressions of
remorse; the fact that Troy is father to three children; and the fact that Troy is
intelligent and had obtained his G.E.D. The court accorded these nonstatutory
factors little weight.
After he was convicted, Troy raised seven claims on direct appeal to the
Florida Supreme Court, including a claim that the trial court had erred in excluding
Galemore’s testimony. As he does now, Troy alleged that his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment right to present mitigation evidence had been violated
because Galemore’s testimony was relevant to Troy’s potential for rehabilitation
and his ability to contribute in a structured prison environment. The Florida
Supreme Court rejected the claim, explaining:
The trial judge made clear that defense counsel still had the
right to argue potential parole ineligibility to the jury as a mitigating
factor, to present evidence as to whether Troy would pose a threat to
prison personnel or other inmates, and to argue whether he was well-
suited to imprisonment. Defense counsel made use of all of these
options, presenting witnesses in mitigation regarding Troy’s behavior
in prison,9 and arguing during closing that, if the jury chose life
imprisonment, “John Troy will be in prison until the day he dies.”
9
Troy called eight witnesses during the penalty phase to
testify as to his general good behavior in prison,
stretching back to his first periods of incarceration in
Tennessee beginning at age eighteen.
A trial court’s ruling on the admission of evidence is reviewed
by an appellate court under an abuse of discretion standard. Randolph
11
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 12 of 35
v. State, 853 So. 2d 1051, 1062 (Fla. 2003) (“The admissibility of
evidence lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and trial court
decisions will be affirmed absent a showing of abuse of discretion.”).
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding Galemore’s testimony. First, it should be noted that
Galemore’s testimony was offered during the penalty phase of Troy’s
trial, which lasted over four and a half days. Defense counsel called
twenty-nine witnesses during this phase, indicating that the judge was
not categorically excluding mitigation evidence or the presentation of
defense witnesses. Furthermore, Galemore had never met Troy, nor
had he ever witnessed Troy during one of his periods of incarceration,
making his potential assessment regarding Troy’s possible prison
experience entirely speculative. When considered in context of the
entire penalty phase, the other witnesses called, and the arguments
defense counsel nevertheless made regarding a possible life sentence,
the exclusion of Galemore as a witness was not an abuse of discretion.
Troy, 948 So. 2d at 650-51.
On June 10, 2008, Troy filed a state court motion for postconviction relief
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 arguing, inter alia, that
counsel failed to prepare Galemore. The state postconviction court summarily
denied relief. Troy appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, again pressing his
argument that counsel did not adequately prepare Galemore. The Florida Supreme
Court affirmed because Troy had not demonstrated Strickland prejudice: “Viewed
in the context of this case, we conclude that the absence of further testimony
presented to the jury discussing Troy’s possible prison experience does not
establish a probability sufficient to undermine our confidence in his sentence of
death.” Troy v. State, 57 So. 3d 828, 836 (Fla. 2011).
12
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 13 of 35
On April 12, 2011, Troy filed a federal habeas petition in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida raising thirteen issues. Troy again
argued that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by excluding
Galemore’s penalty phase testimony. The district court denied that claim,
explaining that Troy failed to demonstrate a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights because Galemore’s testimony would not have addressed
Troy’s character, his prior record, or the circumstances of his offense. The district
court denied the remainder of Troy’s claims and refused to grant a certificate of
appealability.
When Troy appealed to this Court, we originally refused to grant a COA.
Upon Troy’s motion for reconsideration, we issued a COA as to one question:
Whether the trial court violated Troy’s Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights at the penalty phase of his trial by excluding the
proferred testimony of the Department of Corrections official,
Michael Galemore, an assistant warden at the Polk County
Correctional Institution, on the ground that Galemore’s testimony was
relevant to the mitigating factor of Troy’s potential for rehabilitation
and positive contribution in a structured prison environment.
II.
A.
We review de novo a district court grant or denial of a petition for habeas
corpus. McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). The district
court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; questions of law and mixed
13
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 14 of 35
questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo. Id.
Troy filed his federal habeas petition in 2011, after the effective date of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Therefore, Title
28 U.S.C. § 2254 guides our review. Under § 2254(d), federal courts cannot grant
an application for a habeas writ with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits
in state court unless the state decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding.” In this case, the relevant state court decision came on direct appeal,
when the Florida Supreme Court denied on the merits Troy’s claim that the
exclusion of Galemore’s testimony violated the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Troy, 948 So. 2d at 650-51.
Troy does not argue that the Florida Supreme Court made an unreasonable
determination of facts in denying his claim. And Troy comes nowhere close to
satisfying the stringent requirements of § 2254(d)(1). “Under § 2254(d)(1)’s
‘contrary to’ clause, we grant relief only ‘if the state court arrives at a conclusion
opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state
court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially
indistinguishable facts.’” Jones v. GDCP Warden, 753 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir.
14
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 15 of 35
2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413
(2000)). “Under § 2254(d)(1)’s ‘unreasonable application’ clause, we grant relief
only ‘if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the
Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of
the prisoner’s case.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529
U.S. at 413).
For § 2254(d), clearly established federal law includes only the holdings of
the Supreme Court -- not Supreme Court dicta, nor the opinions of this Court.
White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014). To clear the § 2254(d) hurdle, “a
state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented
in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well
understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for
fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786-87 (2011).
“[A]n ‘unreasonable application’ of [Supreme Court] holdings must be ‘objectively
unreasonable,’ not merely wrong; even ‘clear error’ will not suffice.” Woodall,
134 S. Ct. at 1702 (quoting Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75-76 (2003)). A
state court need not cite or even be aware of Supreme Court cases “so long as
neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.”
Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002); accord Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 784. Troy must
demonstrate that no fairminded jurist would have reached the Florida court’s
15
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 16 of 35
conclusion. See Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786-87; Holsey v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic
Prison, 694 F.3d 1230, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2012). “If this standard is difficult to
meet, that is because it was meant to be.” Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786.
B.
Troy argues that the trial court violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment right to present mitigation evidence by keeping out Galemore’s
testimony. In Lockett, Chief Justice Burger’s plurality opinion pronounced that the
Eighth and Fourteenth amendments require that a sentencer be allowed to consider
“any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of
the offense” that a defendant proffers as a mitigating factor in support of a sentence
less than death. 438 U.S. at 604. Later Supreme Court majorities embraced the
Lockett rule, explaining it as “the product of a considerable history reflecting the
law’s effort to develop a system of capital punishment at once consistent and
principled but also humane and sensible to the uniqueness of the individual.”
Eddings, 455 U.S. at 110.
While it made personalized death sentencing a priority, the Lockett rule in
no way “limit[ed] the traditional authority of a court to exclude, as irrelevant,
evidence not bearing on the defendant’s character, prior record, or the
circumstances of his offense.” 438 U.S. at 604 n.12. In this case, Galemore’s
generalized testimony would not have addressed Troy’s offense. It would have
16
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 17 of 35
shed no light on his prior record. And it would have said nothing about Troy’s
character. Instead, Galemore would have been called to testify “that,
hypothetically, were Troy sentenced to life imprisonment, it would be considered
close custody, that Troy would be supervised in a particular fashion, and that he
would work while in prison,” as well as that drugs “are not easily obtained” in
prison. Troy, 948 So. 2d at 650. Galemore had never met Troy and had no
knowledge of his character or conduct. He could not even know which facility
would house Troy if he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Under Lockett, the
Constitution presented no obstacle to the trial court’s exclusion of Galemore’s
testimony as irrelevant.
Troy also invokes Skipper, in which the Supreme Court drew from Lockett
the “rule that the sentencer may not refuse to consider or be precluded from
considering ‘any relevant mitigating evidence.’” 476 U.S. at 4 (quoting Eddings,
455 U.S. at 114). In effect, Troy suggests that Skipper clearly established a
constitutional requirement that sentencers be presented with all evidence even
remotely bearing on any nonstatutory mitigating circumstance recognized by state
law. Skipper did not go so far. In Skipper, the defendant proffered penalty phase
testimony from “two jailers and one ‘regular visitor’ to the jail to the effect that
petitioner had ‘made a good adjustment’ during his time spent in jail.” Id. at 3.
The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of these witnesses violated the
17
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 18 of 35
constitutional principles of Lockett and Eddings: “evidence that the defendant
would not pose a danger if spared (but incarcerated) must be considered potentially
mitigating.” Id. at 5. However, in Skipper, the witnesses would have testified
based on firsthand knowledge about the accused’s previous conduct. Because he
“had been a well-behaved and well-adjusted prisoner, . . . the jury could have
drawn favorable inferences . . . regarding petitioner’s character and his probable
future conduct if sentenced to life in prison.” Id. at 4. Ultimately, Skipper made
clear that a prisoner’s behavior in jail may be conduct relevant to mitigation. Yet
in this case, the trial court allowed the petitioner to present just the sort of
mitigation testimony that had been wrongfully excluded in Skipper: the jury heard
extensive firsthand testimony from eight witnesses about Troy’s behavior in
prison. Troy, 948 So. 2d at 650 n.9. Corrections officers who had supervised him
in the past told the jury that Troy was hard-working, helpful, and respectful, and
that he eased tensions between guards and inmates. Galemore, in sharp contrast,
could not offer Skipper testimony.
Nevertheless, Troy asks this Court to extend Skipper by requiring the
presentation of any evidence -- personalized or not -- that might bear on a capital
defendant’s prospects in prison. But AEDPA prohibits us from applying any law
not clearly established in Supreme Court holdings. Though Skipper referred to
“any relevant mitigating evidence,” it did not suggest, much less clearly establish,
18
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 19 of 35
that this category included testimony from witnesses who lacked particularized
knowledge of the defendant and who could only speculate about the future penal
conditions he might face. Instead, the Lockett rule protects a defendant’s right to
present mitigating evidence particular to his person. See Eddings, 455 U.S. at 112
(“By requiring that the sentencer be permitted to focus ‘on the characteristics of the
person who committed the crime,’ the rule in Lockett recognizes that ‘justice . . .
requires . . . that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense
together with the character and propensities of the offender.’” (alterations in
original)). Personalized aggravating and mitigating factors are the essence of the
“individualized consideration” mandated by the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Lockett, 438 U.S. at 605. No Supreme Court precedent requires a
sentencer to consider testimony of the kind proffered here. See Hitchcock v.
Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 745 F.3d 476, 483 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Evidence of a
rejected plea offer for a lesser sentence, like evidence of innocence or evidence of
the geographical location of the crime, is not a mitigating circumstance because it
sheds no light on a defendant’s character, background, or the circumstances of his
crime.”); see also Williams v. Norris, 612 F.3d 941, 948 (8th Cir. 2010); Owens v.
Guida, 549 F.3d 399, 419 (6th Cir. 2008); Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 892
(9th Cir. 2007). Nor has the Supreme Court taken away a trial court’s power to
limit speculative testimony merely because a defendant tags it as mitigation. See,
19
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 20 of 35
e.g., United States v. Purkey, 428 F.3d 738, 756 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[The Lockett
rule] does not mean that the defense has carte blanche to introduce any and all
evidence that it wishes.”). Quite simply, Florida’s high court did not unreasonably
apply clearly established Supreme Court law in denying Troy’s claim. 2
C.
Troy also argues that the Florida trial court violated his Fourteenth
Amendment right to “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense”
because the exclusion of Galemore’s testimony prevented Troy from rebutting
arguments made against him. Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986)
(quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)). The State attempted
to impeach defense witnesses who predicted Troy would do well in prison by
questioning their familiarity with the prison system. According to Troy, due
2
The concurring opinion suggests that it is “‘unclear’ whether AEDPA deference should apply
to the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that the state trial court properly excluded Mr.
Galemore’s testimony.” As we see it, there is little doubt that we are required by the statutory
command of Congress to review the state court’s decision through the deferential lens of
§ 2254(d). Under that law and controlling Supreme Court precedent, it is abundantly clear that a
federal habeas writ could issue only if the Florida Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at
379. The question we are obliged to answer is whether any fairminded jurist could reach the
Florida Supreme Court’s decision, not whether we would on de novo review. See Richter, 131
S. Ct. at 786. The concurring opinion has identified no Supreme Court precedent (and we can
find none) clearly establishing that the trial court was constitutionally required to admit
testimony purporting to predict Troy’s future behavior in prison when the witness, by his own
admission, knew nothing about the defendant individually, nor which prison he would be
assigned to. On this record, a state court reasonably could find that this speculative testimony
did not tend to prove or disprove Troy’s “disposition to make a well-behaved and peaceful
adjustment to life in prison.” Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 7 (1986); see Tennard v.
Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 284 (2004).
20
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 21 of 35
process entitled him to call a corrections official in rebuttal who had some
generalized knowledge of prison conditions. See Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349,
362 (1977) (plurality opinion) (“[P]etitioner was denied due process of law when
the death sentence was imposed, at least in part, on the basis of information which
he had no opportunity to deny or explain.”).
Troy’s alternative argument fails as well. Even if the State’s cross-
examination suggested to the jury that Troy might use drugs while serving life in
prison, Galemore could only speculate about possible incarceration outcomes. The
Supreme Court “[has] never questioned the power of States to exclude evidence
through the application of evidentiary rules that themselves serve the interests of
fairness and reliability -- even if the defendant would prefer to see that evidence
admitted.” Crane, 476 U.S. at 690. Supreme Court precedent leaves room for trial
courts to exercise a gatekeeping role while permitting the accused to present a
complete defense. Under the Court’s clearly established law, due process does not
require admission of speculative evidence with only the slightest potential to strike
a glancing blow in rebuttal.
Again, Galemore’s “potential assessment regarding Troy’s possible prison
experience” was remote and wholly attenuated. Troy, 948 So. 2d at 651. He had
no basis to compare the circumstances surrounding Troy’s earlier incarcerations,
when Troy had obtained and used drugs, with potential future conditions.
21
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 22 of 35
Galemore could not speak to Troy’s past because he knew nothing about Troy or
his time in previous prisons and jails. And Galemore could only guess about
Troy’s future. The Florida Supreme Court had good reason to doubt that the
proffered testimony about the overarching “issue of drugs in prison” would have
predicted Troy’s particular experience. Thus, for example, because he did not
know which Florida prison might hold Troy, Galemore could offer nothing about
the accessibility of drugs or, indeed, the record of drug use by prisoners in that
future facility. Again, the Florida Supreme Court’s refusal to grant relief based on
the exclusion of Galemore’s “entirely speculative” testimony was not contrary to
or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Id.
None of the cases cited by Troy convince us otherwise. In Gardner, the
sentencing judge had considered a confidential presentencing report without
allowing the defendant to see it. See 430 U.S. at 356. Troy does not allege that
any evidence was kept from him. In Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154
(1994), the Supreme Court held that due process protected a petitioner’s right to
make clear to the jury “that life imprisonment meant life without parole” because
information about parole eligibility could rebut the State’s arguments about future
dangerousness. Id. at 162. Unlike in Simmons, which involved the concrete fact
that a life sentence came without the possibility of parole, Troy sought to present
speculative evidence of future prison conditions. What’s more, the trial court here
22
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 23 of 35
told the jury that life imprisonment actually meant life. Troy cannot satisfy
§ 2254(d)(1) on his opportunity-to-rebut claim. Again, nothing contained in the
Florida Supreme Court’s determination about Troy’s Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment claims amounts to an unreasonable application of clearly established
law.
D.
Even if Troy could clear the § 2254(d) hurdle, he still would not be entitled
to relief because the error would have been harmless when measured against the
habeas “actual prejudice” standard of review -- it would not have “had substantial
and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht, 507
U.S. at 623 (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 776); see also, e.g., Mansfield v.
Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 679 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[A] federal habeas
court may deny relief based solely on a determination that a federal constitutional
error was harmless under the Brecht standard.”). “To show prejudice under
Brecht, there must be ‘more than a reasonable possibility that the error contributed
to the [conviction or] sentence.’” Mason v. Allen, 605 F.3d 1114, 1123 (11th Cir.
2010) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting Horsley v. Alabama, 45 F.3d
1486, 1493 (11th Cir. 1995)). Considering the powerful aggravating factors
presented at trial, Galemore’s testimony would have added precious little to the
extensive mitigation testimony offered by other corrections officers, a psychiatrist,
23
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 24 of 35
and Troy’s family and friends.
The trial court found four potent statutory aggravating factors. First and
foremost, the murder of Carroll was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.” Fla.
Stat. § 921.141(5)(h). The chaotic bedroom where she was found told the story of
a brutal, bloody struggle, as did other rooms in the house. Troy stabbed Bonnie
Carroll forty-four times: on her neck and throat, her upper chest, on her head and
arms, and across her abdomen. In many places, the knife penetrated up to five
inches, puncturing her lung, her liver, and her bowels. One knife blade ultimately
perforated her thoracic aorta, broke off, and lodged in her lateral right chest. Troy
then used another knife, as well as shards of glass. Carroll sustained at least seven
blunt traumas to the face and a jagged abrasion in her scalp. Multiple defensive
wounds to her hands and arms leave no doubt that Carroll was awake during the
onslaught. At one point, Troy had bound her wrists, shoved a folded rag into the
back of her throat, and tied a cloth around her neck. Carroll died from multiple
sharp force injuries, but she was alive when Troy inflicted almost all of the
wounds. Grotesquely, a long, gaping gash in her neck may have extended her life
by providing an airway when her throat was gagged. Not without ample reason,
the trial court concluded that Troy “made an extraordinary effort to inflict a high
degree of pain with utter indifference to Bonnie Carroll’s suffering. In the method
of injury, the utter ferocity of the assault, and the time required to complete the
24
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 25 of 35
attack, his actions were manifestly pitiless and unnecessarily torturous.”
Second, Troy had been convicted of other felonies involving the use or
threat of violence. Id. § 921.141(5)(b). In fact, Troy had eight qualifying
convictions: three for Armed Robbery, part of a crime spree in the Florida
Panhandle; one for Aggravated Assault with a Weapon, when he stabbed a fellow
inmate in Tennessee; and, as to Tracie Burchette, Burglary of a Dwelling While
Armed with a Dangerous Weapon, Aggravated Battery, Armed Kidnapping, and
Robbery with a Deadly Weapon. Third, Troy had murdered Carroll while on
probation for a felony. Id. § 921.141(5)(a). At the time of the attack, Troy was
both on parole from Tennessee and on conditional release from the Florida
Department of Corrections.
Fourth and finally, Troy murdered Carroll during the commission of or
attempt to commit robbery and sexual battery. Id. § 921.141(5)(d). Troy needed
transportation to flee the state and avoid arrest for violating his conditional release.
He needed money for the trip and to feed his drug addiction. By murdering
Carroll, Troy got a car and a pitifully small amount of cash. The jury also heard
substantial evidence of sexual assault: Carroll was found nude and gagged, with
her clothing cut off and her underwear on the bedroom floor. She had fresh minor
injuries to external genitalia consistent with contact from a penis or fingers. Her
inner thighs had small contusions consistent with fingers attempting to pry open
25
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 26 of 35
closed legs. The trial court also found that the murder was committed for
pecuniary gain, id. § 921.141(5)(f), though the court noted that this factor merged
with the robbery aggravator.
The mitigating factors presented at length to the jury were considerably less
significant, even though Troy called twenty-nine witnesses during the four-and-a-
half-day penalty phase. Troy, 948 So. 2d at 651. Troy’s desires to use cocaine and
to avoid his impending return to prison contributed to extreme mental or emotional
disturbance, particularly because of his drug use at the time. Id. § 921.141(6)(b).
His capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his behavior
to the requirements of law on the night of the crime was substantially impaired by
his use of marijuana, alcohol, and especially cocaine. Id. § 921.141(6)(f). The
court also found several nonstatutory mitigating factors. Troy grew up in a
dysfunctional family. He intervened in a violent jail encounter to protect a prison
guard who had been a childhood friend. As a teenager, Troy was sexually
molested when he received illegal drugs from a teacher in exchange for sexual
favors. He then suffered stigma in his small town when he testified against the
perpetrator. Troy had a history of mental and emotional problems. Like he had
done after previous crimes, Troy cooperated with police and confessed to Carroll’s
murder, albeit not at his first chance. He had difficulty adjusting to life outside of
prison, mainly because of his craving for cocaine. Troy is the father of three
26
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 27 of 35
children. He is intelligent, has obtained his G.E.D., and is a prolific letter-writer
for himself and others. He repeatedly expressed remorse for his conduct, though
the court found that his statements were rooted in self-pity and not sincere.
Prominently, Troy argued during the penalty phase that he could rehabilitate
and contribute substantially if sentenced to life imprisonment. The jury heard
extensive testimony from eight mitigation witnesses who had supervised Troy
during previous periods of incarceration. Corrections officers detailed how Troy
had been rewarded with plum job assignments for being a trustworthy inmate. To
guards, he was “quiet” and “respectful.” A Florida prison official who led a
construction work crew testified that, out of hundreds, Troy was the best inmate he
had ever had: “a hard worker, . . . courteous, respectful.” A female corrections
officer testified that John, unlike almost all other inmates, never engaged in lewd
behavior toward her. “He would do anything you asked him to do without
disrespecting you in any way.” He worked hard, was not manipulative, and helped
de-escalate problems with other inmates. Yet another corrections officer, from
Lincoln County, Tennessee, testified that he could rely on John to protect him from
other inmates: “I didn’t worry about any problem in the cell block he was in.” A
final Florida officer explained how Troy intermediated between guards and
prisoners by telling other inmates to follow directions “so we don’t have no
problems.” A fellow inmate testified that at one facility Troy was the head library
27
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 28 of 35
clerk, was solely responsible for organizing the prisoners’ recreational activities,
and was positive and supportive in group therapy sessions for drug addiction.
Family and friends testified that Troy benefited from the rigid structure and
guidance of prison. His father explained that Troy “prospered in that
environment,” where he could help other inmates. “Because of his terrible drug
addiction . . . he’s best placed in a situation” where he could not get his hands on
drugs. His grandfather testified that prison allowed Troy to develop his talents
through training as a welder, a roofer, and a mason, and by working with
computers. His uncle predicted that Troy could educate other inmates and could
warn children about the dangers of drug addiction. According to Troy’s penalty-
phase mental-health expert, “[i]t’s really pretty simple. You put him in a drug free
environment for a long enough period of time, and he can become reasonable.”
The prosecution countered by pointing to Troy’s history of drug use while
incarcerated. He committed an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in a
Tennessee prison as part of a dispute related to his payment for drugs. Troy also
admitted that he tested positive for drugs while on controlled release because he
had used marijuana in prison.
Balancing these aggravating and mitigating factors, the jury voted eleven to
one to recommend the death penalty. In accepting the jury’s recommendation, the
trial court “concluded the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating
28
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 29 of 35
ones beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt.” Galemore’s testimony
would have added virtually nothing of value to the jury’s calculus. Even on the
flawed theory that the evidence shed any light on Troy’s possibility for
rehabilitation, statements that Troy would serve a life sentence under “close
custody,” would work while incarcerated, and might find it difficult to obtain drugs
in prison could hardly have caused a ripple in the overwhelming wake of
aggravating factors. This testimony from yet another corrections officer -- one
who knew nothing of Troy’s background, character, record, or what prison he
would be sent to -- would have paled next to the ghastliness of Carroll’s murder.
“[I]f one is left in grave doubt, the [sentence] cannot stand.” Kotteakos, 328 U.S.
at 765; accord Trepal v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 684 F.3d 1088, 1114 (11th Cir.
2012). But Troy gives no reason for doubt.
Section 2254(d)(1) bars habeas relief for Troy because the Florida Supreme
Court’s rejection of his claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of
clearly established Supreme Court law. Moreover, harmless error would also
preclude relief because the exclusion of Galemore’s testimony had no “substantial
and injurious effect” on the jury’s recommendation of death. Brecht, 507 U.S. at
623.
AFFIRMED.
29
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 30 of 35
MARTIN, Circuit Judge, concurring in result only:
I agree with the Majority that Mr. Troy is not entitled to habeas relief
because any constitutional error committed at his trial was harmless under the test
established in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S. Ct. 1710 (1993). But I
do not join in the Majority’s ruling that there was no constitutional violation during
the penalty phase of Mr. Troy’s trial.
We need not decide here whether the Florida Supreme Court’s decision is
entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA). That is because “even if AEDPA deference does not apply, [Mr. Troy]
cannot show prejudice under de novo review, the more favorable standard of
review for [him].” Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 390, 130 S. Ct. 2250,
2265 (2010). The Supreme Court allows us to deny “writs of habeas corpus under
§ 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA
deference applies, because a habeas petitioner will not be entitled to a writ of
habeas corpus if his or her claim is rejected on de novo review.” Id. (citing 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a)); see also Mansfield v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 679 F.3d 1301, 1308
(11th Cir. 2012) (“[A] federal habeas court may deny relief based solely on a
determination that a federal constitutional error was harmless under the Brecht
standard.”).
And for me it is “unclear” whether AEDPA deference should apply to the
30
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 31 of 35
Florida Supreme Court’s determination that the state trial court properly excluded
Mr. Galemore’s testimony. See Troy v. State, 948 So. 2d 635, 650–51 (Fla. 2006).
In Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954 (1978), the Supreme Court
established the bedrock Eighth Amendment principle that a sentencer in a capital
case must “not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of
a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that
the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Id. at 604, 98 S.
Ct. at 2965. Of course, the Majority correctly points out that the Supreme Court in
no way intended Lockett to “limit[] the traditional authority of a court to exclude,
as irrelevant, evidence not bearing on the defendant’s character, prior record, or the
circumstances of his offense.” Id. at 605 n.12, 98 S. Ct. at 2965 n.12. But I part
ways with my colleagues’ conclusion that Mr. Galemore would have said nothing
constitutionally relevant about “Troy’s character, conduct, or individual qualities,
and could only have guessed about Troy’s potential conditions of imprisonment.”
See Maj. Op. at 3.
It surely means something that when the Supreme Court has “addressed
directly the relevance standard applicable to mitigating evidence in capital cases . .
. [the Court] spoke in the most expansive terms.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S.
274, 284, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2570 (2004) (citation omitted). For example, in
reversing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for applying too narrow a test for
31
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 32 of 35
mitigation, the Supreme Court explained:
[T]he meaning of relevance is no different in the context of mitigating
evidence introduced in a capital sentencing proceeding than in any
other context, and thus the general evidentiary standard—any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to
the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it
would be without the evidence—applies. . . . Relevant mitigating
evidence is evidence which tends logically to prove or disprove some
fact or circumstance which a fact-finder could reasonably deem to
have mitigating value. Thus, a State cannot bar the consideration of . .
. . evidence if the sentencer could reasonably find that it warrants a
sentence less than death.
Once this low threshold for relevance is met, the Eighth
Amendment requires that the jury be able to consider and give effect
to a capital defendant's mitigating evidence.
Id. at 284–85, 124 S. Ct. at 2570 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 822, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 2606–07 (1991) (“We
have held that a State cannot preclude the sentencer from considering ‘any relevant
mitigating evidence’ that the defendant proffers in support of a sentence less than
death. . . . [V]irtually no limits are placed on the relevant mitigating evidence a
capital defendant may introduce concerning his own circumstances.” (quotation
marks omitted)). Under this clearly established Supreme Court law, Mr.
Galemore’s testimony is relevant mitigating evidence because it “tends logically to
prove . . . some fact or circumstance which a fact-finder could reasonably deem to
have mitigating value.” Tennard, 542 U.S. at 284, 124 S. Ct. at 2570. The specific
“fact or circumstance” Mr. Troy sought to prove by way of Mr. Galemore’s
32
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 33 of 35
testimony was Mr. Troy’s “disposition to make a well-behaved and peaceful
adjustment to life in prison.” See Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 7, 106 S.
Ct. 1669, 1672 (1986). The Supreme Court has said this type of evidence “is itself
an aspect of [a defendant’s] character that is by its nature relevant to the sentencing
determination.” Id. I am not swayed, as the majority is, by the facts that Mr.
Galemore had not interviewed Mr. Troy and could not testify with any certainty
about Mr. Troy’s designation to a particular prison. These facts could no doubt
offer fertile grounds for cross examination. But they do not render Mr. Galemore’s
testimony irrelevant on the topic of whether Mr. Troy “would pose no undue
danger to his jailer or fellow prisoners and could lead a useful life behind bars.”
Id.
Beyond Eighth Amendment mitigation concerns, the excluding Mr.
Galemore’s testimony also implicates serious due process concerns. A capital
defendant is “denied due process of law when the death sentence was imposed, at
least in part, on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or
explain.” Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 362, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1207 (1977). Mr.
Troy and the State both introduced evidence about Mr. Troy’s prior drug use in
prison, as well as the connection between his drug use and criminal behavior. This
highlights the crucial importance of information about whether Mr. Troy would
have access to drugs in close custody condition of confinement, regardless of
33
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 34 of 35
where Mr. Troy was in prisoned. Mr. Galemore would have spoken directly to this
issue. I understand that the state trial court did not allow the state to argue that Mr.
Troy would have access to drugs if he were sentenced to life, but it did allow the
state to impeach defense witnesses on this very issue.
Specifically, during cross examination of defense witnesses, the state raised
questions about Mr. Troy’s future dangerousness in prison; invited the jury to
speculate about his access to drugs while in prison; and highlighted the effect his
possible drug use might have on his prospects for adjusting well and not posing a
threat to inmates and staff. Once the state undertook to raise these issues, Mr. Troy
was constitutionally entitled to rebut the state’s evidence and inferences. See Kelly
v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 246, 252–57, 122 S. Ct. 726, 731–33 (2002) (holding
that a capital defendant is entitled to rebut future dangerousness even it is merely
implied by the evidence presented at trial, rather than explicitly argued).
As I mentioned, I have analyzed all of this without the deference ordinarily
required by AEDPA. That is because even under the de novo review I have used, a
habeas petition can only be granted if the constitutional violation at the trial level
resulted in “actual prejudice” to the petitioner. Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637, 113 S. Ct.
at 1722. And as the majority has meticulously set out, Mr. Troy was allowed to
present what certainly seems to be a mountain of mitigating evidence. Several of
the witnesses the jury did hear, specifically talked about his good prison behavior
34
Case: 13-10516 Date Filed: 08/15/2014 Page: 35 of 35
in the past and his potential to adapt well in the future. This being the case, and in
light of all the other mitigating and aggravating evidence presented, the fact that
the jury did not hear Mr. Galemore’s testimony did not have a substantial an
injurious effect on the outcome of Mr. Troy’s trial. I therefore agree with my
colleagues that Mr. Troy is not entitled to habeas relief.
35