Alabama v. Marcus Bernard Williams

While Melanie Rowell and her two toddlers slept, Marcus Williams broke into her house, crept up the stairs, climbed into Melanie’s bed, strangled her to death, and raped her lifeless body. Williams confessed to his crimes and received the death penalty. In state habeas, Williams argued that he was abused as a child and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present such evidence at sentencing. The trial court denied his claim on the merits. But, according to the Eleventh Circuit, the state decision was owed no deference under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) because it was later affirmed on procedural grounds, not the merits. The first question is:

1. Does a state-court adjudication on the merits lose its entitlement to AEDPA deference if it is affirmed on procedural grounds? The Eleventh Circuit granted habeas relief, concluding that Williams was prejudiced because the jury never heard about his childhood abuse and resulting “hypersexuality.” But the jury also never heard that weeks after he killed Rowell, he broke into the home of another woman and tried to rape her. Raising his “hypersexuality” would not have been solely mitigating and would have opened the door to devastating evidence that Williams was a dangerous and unrepentant serial rapist. The second question is:

2. Was it proper to find Strickland prejudice without considering the double-edged nature of Williams’s “hypersexuality” and the new aggravating evidence of his second violent sex crime?