Dunn v. Reeves

• Decision Date: 02 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-1084,20-1084
• Citation: 141 S.Ct. 2405,210 L.Ed.2d 812
• Parties: Jefferson S. DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections v. Matthew REEVES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

141 S.Ct. 2405

210 L.Ed.2d 812

Jefferson S. DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

v.Matthew REEVES

No. 20-1084

Supreme Court of the United States.

Decided July 2, 2021

Per Curiam.

Willie Johnson towed Matthew Reeves’ broken-down car back to the city after finding Reeves stranded on an Alabama dirt road. In payment for this act of kindness, Reeves murdered Johnson, stole his money, and mocked his dying spasms. Years after being convicted of murder and sentenced to death, Reeves sought state postconviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel should have hired an expert to develop sentencing-phase mitigation evidence of intellectual disability. But despite having the burden to rebut the strong presumption that his attorneys made a legitimate strategic choice, Reeves did not call any of them to testify. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief, stressing that lack of evidence about counsel's decisions impeded Reeves’ efforts to prove that they acted unreasonably. Reeves v. State , 226 So.3d 711, 750–751 (2016).

On federal habeas review, the Eleventh Circuit held that this analysis was not only wrong, but indefensible. In an unpublished, per curiam opinion that drew heavily on a dissent from denial of certiorari, the Eleventh Circuit reinterpreted the Alabama court's lengthy opinion as imposing a simple per se prohibition on relief in all cases where a prisoner fails to question his counsel. Reeves v. Commissioner, Ala. Dept. of Corrections , 836 Fed.Appx. 733, 744–747 (2020). It was the Eleventh Circuit, however, that went astray in its "readiness to attribute error." Woodford v. Visciotti , 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (per curiam ). Federal habeas courts must defer to reasonable state-court decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and the Alabama court's treatment of the spotty record in this case was consistent with this Court's recognition that "the absence of evidence cannot overcome the strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Burt v. Titlow , 571 U.S. 12, 23, 134 S.Ct. 10, 187 L.Ed.2d 348 (2013) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

I

In November 1996, Reeves and some friends decided to "go out looking for some robberies." Reeves , 226 So.3d at 719 (internal quotation marks omitted). The group's initial target was a drug dealer in a nearby town, but their car broke down and left them stranded on the side of the road. A few hours later, however, Johnson happened to drive by in his truck and offered to tow the disabled vehicle to Reeves’ house.

After they arrived, Reeves, who was riding in the bed of the truck, stuck a shotgun through the rear window of the cab and shot Johnson in the neck. As Johnson sat slumped in the driver's seat "bleeding heavily and making gagging noises," Reeves directed the rest of the group to "go through Johnson's pockets to get his money." Id. , at 720 (internal quotation marks omitted). Throughout the rest of the day, Reeves repeatedly "brag[ged] about having shot Johnson," boasting that the murder "would earn him a ‘teardrop,’ a gang tattoo acquired for killing someone." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). And at a party that night, Reeves invented a dance in which he "pretend[ed] to pump a shotgun" and "jerk[ed] his body around in a manner mocking the way that Willie Johnson had died." Ibid. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

Alabama charged Reeves with murder and appointed counsel for him. His attorneys took several steps to develop mitigating evidence, including exploring the possibility that Reeves was intellectually disabled. For example, they obtained extensive records of Reeves’ educational, medical, and correctional history. Counsel also requested funding to hire a neuropsychologist, Dr. John Goff, to evaluate Reeves and prepare mitigation evidence. And when the trial court initially rejected that request, counsel successfully sought reconsideration.

After the court granted funding, Reeves’ attorneys managed to acquire additional mental-health records from the State, including documents related to a pretrial competency evaluation that featured a partial administration of an IQ test.¹ The totality of the evidence reflected that Reeves had a troubled childhood, suffered from numerous behavioral difficulties, and was within the "borderline" range of intelligence. While in school—before being expelled for violence and misbehavior—he had been referred to special services for emotional conflict and behavioral issues. But Reeves’ records also showed that he had previously been denied special educational services for intellectual disability. Counsel also learned that Reeves had attended classes and earned certificates in welding, masonry, and automotive mechanics. And the psychologist who initially evaluated Reeves later opined that he was not intellectually disabled.

At some point before trial, Reeves’ attorneys apparently elected to pursue other mitigation strategies instead of hiring Dr. Goff. The record does not reveal the exact reason for this decision—likely because Reeves did not ask them to testify. The record does show, however, that counsel presented a holistic mitigation case. For example, counsel called several witnesses at sentencing—including Reeves’ mother and the psychologist who performed the competency evaluation—and elicited testimony about Reeves’ turbulent childhood, neglectful family, and educational difficulties. The jury, however, recommended a death sentence.

Reeves later sought postconviction relief in state court, alleging almost 20 theories of error. Relevant here, he asserted that he was categorically exempt from execution by reason of intellectual disability, see Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), or at the very least that counsel should have hired Dr. Goff to develop mitigation along those lines for use at sentencing, see Porter v. McCollum , 558 U.S. 30, 130 S.Ct. 447, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (per curiam ). At a 2-day hearing in state court, Reeves called two experts, including Dr. Goff. The doctor concluded that Reeves was intellectually disabled, explaining that the so-called Flynn Effect—a controversial theory involving the inflation of IQ scores over time—required adjusting Reeves’ score downward into the 60s.² Dr. Goff also cited a number of behavioral assessments that supposedly showed Reeves’ shortcomings in adaptive functioning. For its part, the State offered the expert testimony of Dr. King, who administered his own evaluation and concluded that Reeves was not intellectually disabled. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that Reeves had a leadership role in a drug-dealing group and earned as much as $2,000 a week.

Despite Reeves’ focus on his attorney's performance, he did not give them the opportunity to explain their actions. Although all three of his lawyers apparently were alive and available, Reeves did not call them to testify.

The trial court denied relief, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. First, it agreed that Reeves had failed to prove that he was actually intellectually disabled and thus exempt from execution. Reeves , 226 So.3d at 744. The court specifically addressed Dr. Goff's reliance on the Flynn Effect, reiterating that this approach "has not been accepted as scientifically valid by all courts" and was "not settled in the psychological community." Id. , at 739 (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, even Dr. Goff had "admitted that he did not use the ‘Flynn Effect’ for over 20 years after it was first discovered." Ibid.

Second, the court rejected Reeves’ claim that counsel should have hired an expert to develop mitigating evidence of intellectual disability. Stressing that an attorney's decision not to hire an expert is "typically [a] strategic decisio[n]" that will "not constitute per se deficient performance," the court looked to the record to assess the "reasoning behind counsel's actions." Id. , at 750, 751 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the court observed, "the record [was] silent as to th[ose] reasons" "because Reeves failed to call his counsel to testify." Id. , at 751 (internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, he could not overcome the "presumption of effectiveness" that courts must afford to trial counsel. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Reeves sought certiorari, which we denied over a dissent. Reeves v. Alabama , 583 U. S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 22, 199 L.Ed.2d 341 (2017) (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). The dissent acknowledged that the "absence of counsel's testimony may make it more difficult for a defendant to meet his burden" of proving deficient performance, but still would have reversed and remanded because it understood the Alabama court to have applied "a categorical rule that counsel must testify in order for a petitioner to succeed on a federal constitutional ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim." Id. , at ––––, ––––, 138 S.Ct., at 23, 26. Although the dissent cited no decision in which this Court reprimanded a state court for taking that approach, it reasoned that such a rule was contrary to decisions in which this Court had "found deficient performance despite [attorney] testimony, based on a review of the full record." Id. , at ––––, 138 S.Ct., at 26.³

Reeves next sought federal habeas review. The District Court denied relief, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part. Like every court before it, the Eleventh Circuit first rejected Reeves’ claim that he was intellectually disabled. 836 Fed.Appx. at 741. But, it held that his lawyers were constitutionally deficient for not developing more evidence of intellectual disability and that this failure might have changed the outcome of the trial.

In reaching that result, the Eleventh Circuit explained that it owed no deference to the "unreasonable" decision of the Alabama court. § 2254(d). Quoting at length from the earlier dissent from denial of...