Neal v. Puckett
286 F.3d 230 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a federal court cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus on a claim adjudicated by a state court unless the state court's decision was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, not merely an incorrect one.
Facts:
- Howard Monteville Neal, a moderately retarded man with an IQ between 54 and 60, was discarded by his family as a youth and spent eight years in state mental institutions.
- As a young adult, Neal was incarcerated in an Oklahoma prison where he suffered severe sexual abuse by fellow inmates.
- In January 1981, Neal drove to the home of his half-brother, Bobby Neal, and left with Bobby, Bobby's 13-year-old daughter Amanda Joy, and her friend.
- During the drive, Neal began fondling Amanda Joy, which led to an argument with Bobby.
- Neal stopped the car, walked away with Bobby, and shot and killed him.
- Neal then returned to the car, drove the two girls to a deserted area, and proceeded to rape both of them.
- After raping the girls, Neal shot both of them, killing them. An autopsy revealed Amanda Joy suffered numerous injuries and may have lived for up to 30 minutes after being shot.
- Neal fled to California, where he was later arrested and confessed to the murders.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Neal was tried and convicted for murder in a Mississippi state trial court.
- The jury sentenced Neal to death after finding two aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating evidence.
- Neal, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Neal filed a petition for post-conviction relief (state habeas corpus) with the Mississippi Supreme Court, which denied the petition after granting an evidentiary hearing on a separate issue.
- Neal then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
- The district court denied Neal's petition and subsequently denied his request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA).
- Neal, as appellant, sought a COA from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which granted the certificate on the sole issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state supreme court's denial of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim constitute an unreasonable application of the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, where trial counsel failed to investigate and present substantial mitigating evidence, but the state court concluded this failure was not prejudicial because the evidence would have been cumulative?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The Mississippi Supreme Court's decision did not involve an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington. To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland, a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice. The court first found that Neal's counsel was deficient for failing to conduct a reasonably substantial investigation into mitigating evidence; counsel presented only a skeletal case through Neal's mother and one psychologist, failing to contact numerous available witnesses who could have provided powerful testimony about Neal's abusive childhood, horrid institutionalization, and abuse in prison. The court then found that the Mississippi Supreme Court's conclusion of no prejudice was incorrect, as there was a reasonable probability the additional, high-quality mitigating evidence would have led at least one juror to vote against the death penalty. However, under the highly deferential AEDPA standard, an incorrect application of federal law is not sufficient for relief. The state court's decision must be objectively unreasonable. Given the heinous nature of the crimes and that the jury had already heard the basic outline of Neal's mitigating circumstances, it was not objectively unreasonable for the Mississippi Supreme Court to conclude that the additional, cumulative evidence would not have overcome the overwhelming aggravating factors and changed the outcome.
Concurring - Jolly
I concur. The opinion correctly applies the highly deferential standard required by AEDPA. The statutory term 'unreasonable application' requires federal courts to defer to a state court decision unless it was capricious, irrational, or not guided by reason. The legislative history of AEDPA confirms that Congress intended 'unreasonable' to be a very high bar, closer to 'arbitrary' than to 'incorrect.' Therefore, the question is not whether the state court's application of Strickland was reasonable, but whether the petitioner proved it was unreasonable. Under this demanding standard, the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision, while perhaps incorrect, was not objectively unreasonable, and habeas relief must be denied.
Analysis:
This case is a significant application of the AEDPA's deferential standard of review to ineffective assistance of counsel claims. It powerfully illustrates that a federal court can explicitly find a state court's application of the Strickland prejudice prong to be 'erroneous' or 'incorrect' yet still be compelled to deny habeas relief. The decision clarifies that the 'unreasonable application' clause of § 2254(d) creates a substantial buffer for state court decisions, allowing them to stand so long as they are within a range of plausible, even if incorrect, legal outcomes. This raises the bar for habeas petitioners and significantly curtails the power of federal courts to remedy what they perceive as constitutional errors in state criminal proceedings.
Unlock the full brief for Neal v. Puckett