U.S. v. Battle, Criminal Case No. 1:95-CR-528-ODE.
| Court | United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | Orinda D. Evans |
| Citation | 264 F.Supp.2d 1088 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Anthony George BATTLE. |
| Decision Date | 30 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:01-cv-2620-ODE.,Criminal Case No. 1:95-CR-528-ODE. |
v.
Anthony George BATTLE.
Page 1089
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1090
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1091
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1092
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1093
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1094
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 1095
William H. McKinnon, Assistant United States Attorney, Atlanta, GA, for Government.
Margaret O'Donnell, McNally & O'Donnell, P.S.C., Frankfort, KY, P. Bruce Kirwan, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.
ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge.
This federal death penalty case is before the Court for a ruling on Defendant's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant seeks to set aside his conviction and his sentence.
The Court having heard the evidence at trial, the evidence presented in support of Defendant's habeas claims, and having the benefit of the arguments of counsel will set forth below its legal conclusions and, where specifically indicated its findings of fact. For the reasons stated, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................1097
II. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY ACT,
18 U.S.C. §§ 3591-3597 .......................................1099
A. Defendant's Challenge to His Sentence.................................1099
B. Constitutionality of the Federal Death Penalty Act under the Fifth
Amendment Indictment Clause ......................................1103
C. Challenge to the FDPA's Evidentiary Standard..........................1105
III. COMPETENCY-RELATED CLAIMS.................................................1107
A. Authority of Magistrate Judge to Preside at Competency Hearing........1107
B. Substantive Competency Claim .........................................1108
1. Competency Proceedings.............................................1109
2. Trial Proceedings..................................................1120
3. Kearns' Declaration................................................1122
4. 2002 Psychiatric Report............................................1123
5. Findings and Conclusions...........................................1125
C. Continuance to Permit Further Competency Evaluation..................1128
IV. CONTROL OF DEFENSE OF INSANITY............................................1129
V. CLAIMED INVESTIGATIVE FAILURES OF COUNSEL.................................1137
A. Adequacy of Social History Investigation...............................1137
B. Mitigating Mental Health Evidence......................................1143
Page 1096
C. Pesticide Exposure.....................................................1149
D. Defendant's Odd Behavior While in Prison Before the Murder.............1150
E. Defendant's Complaints of Implants before Washington's Murder..........1151
1. Complaints to Inmates...............................................1151
2. Complaints to Family Members........................................1156
F. Findings and Conclusions .............................................1161
VI. FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO MENTAL HEALTH
EXPERTS.................................................................1161
A. Disciplinary Records..................................................1161
B. Chaotic and Violent Environment at USP-Atlanta........................1162
C. CT Scan Results.......................................................1163
D. Information Concerning Defendant's Social/Family Background and the
Development of His Mental Illness....................................1167
VII. MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL IN VARIOUS STAGES OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCESS...............................................................1168
A. Preindictment Phase...................................................1169
B. Pretrial Phase........................................................1169
1. Limitation on Butner Evaluation ...................................1169
2. Neurological Examination...........................................1170
3. Continuance of Trial...............................................1170
4. Exclusion of Robert Willis' Testimony..............................1171
5. Appointment of a Treating Psychiatrist.............................1173
6. Testimony of Counsel at Competency Hearing.........................1174
7. Daubert Hearing....................................................1175
8. Failure to Coordinate Work.........................................1176
C. Trial Phase...........................................................1178
1. Voir Dire..........................................................1178
2. Change of Clothes..................................................1179
3. Expert Testimony on Effect of Defendant's Mental Illness...........1179
4. Expert Explanation of Outburst in Courtroom And Defendant's
May 6,1995 Telephone Conversation with His Father................1180
5. Failure to Call John Pannell as a Trial Witness....................1180
6. Evidence that the Government Can Safely Incarcerate Defendant......1181
7. Conditions of Defendant's Confinement at the Atlanta Pretrial
Detention Center.................................................1183
8. BOP Role in Bringing About Washington's Death......................1183
9. Preparation of Defendant to Testify at the Guilt Phase and
Penalty Phase of the Trial.......................................1184
10. Deterioration of Defendant at Trial...............................1185
11. Failure to Call Dr. Rogers as Part of Defendant's Case in Chief...1185
12. Failure to Investigate, Seek to Set Aside, and Mitigate 1987
Conviction......................................................1186
13. Exclusion of Donovan Testimony....................................1187
14. Jury Instruction On Unadjudicated Criminal Conduct................1188
15. Jury Instruction that Life Sentence Defendant was Serving was a
Parolable Offense...............................................1189
D. Appeal................................................................1189
VIII. JUROR MISCONDUCT.........................................................1190
A. Jurors Sleeping.......................................................1190
B. Other Juror Misconduct................................................1192
1. Presence of Bible and Discussion of Religious Scripture During
the Trial..........................................................1192
2. Presence of Alternate Jurors During Guilt Phase Deliberations.....1193
3. Premature Penalty Deliberations...................................1194
4. Cumulative Effect of Jury Misconduct..............................1194
Page 1097
IX. TRIAL COURT ERRORS .....................................................1194
A. Limitation on the Penalty Phase Testimony of Defense Social Historian
and Social Worker Jan Vogelsang....................................1194
B. Discharge of Jurors Craft and Tooley.................................1196
C. Refusal to Permit Juror Craft to Attend the Trial after She was
Dismissed as a Juror...............................................1197
D. Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Consequences of a Not Guilty by
Reason of Insanity Verdict..........................................1198
E. Insufficient Evidence of "Heinous, Cruel and Depraved" Aggravating
Circumstance.......................................................1199
X. BIAS OF TRIAL JUDGE......................................................1200
XI. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.................................................1201
XII. CONFLICT ISSUES.........................................................1206
A. Drs. Johnson and Hazelrigg...........................................1206
B. Trial Counsel........................................................1206
XIII. VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO MEANINGFUL APPELLATE REVIEW.......................1207
XIV. NEW TRIAL REQUEST........................................................1207
XV. CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ERRORS..............................................1209
XVI. DEATH PENALTY CRUEL AND UNUSUAL........................................1209
XVII. CONCLUSION.............................................................1209
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 21, 1995, Defendant was charged in a indictment with the murder of D'Antonio Washington, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1118. The indictment charged that:
[o]n or about December 21, 1994, [Defendant] while confined in a federal correctional institution, the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, under a sentence of life imprisonment ... did unlawfully and with malice aforethought commit the murder of D'Antonio Washington, by beating [him] with a hammer ...
Defendant entered a plea of not guilty on December 4, 1995. He simultaneously filed a notice of intent to rely on the defense of insanity at the time of the offense.
On July 26, 1996, the Government filed the statutorily required Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty. See 18 U.S.C. 3593(a). The notice referenced the intent or gateway factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3591(a)(2)1 and listed five statutory aggravating factors2 along with several nonstatutory
Page 1098
aggravating factors which the Government sought to prove during the proceedings. After a determination of Defendant's competency to stand trial, the trial began on February 21, 1997.3 The primary issue at the guilt-innocence phase of the trial was whether Defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts at the time of commission of the murder. See 18 U.S.C. § 17(a) (defining insanity defense). The Government's experts opined that Defendant has a mixed personality disorder,4 with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
27 practice notes
-
U.S. v. Le, No. CRIM. 1:03CR48.
...any type of unreliable or prejudicial evidence that might render a trial fundamentally unfair.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1106 In summary, as the Fifth Circuit correctly concluded, the relaxed evidentiary Page 608 standard set forth in § 3593(c) "does not im......
-
U.S. v. Rodriguez, Crim.No. C2-04-55.
...and must be charged in the indictment, while non-statutory factors need not be alleged in the indictment); United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1105 (N.D.Ga.2003) (non-statutory aggravating factors need not be alleged in the indictment because they do not increase the punishment); U......
-
U.S. v. Fell, Docket No. 02-1638.
...to exclude any type of unreliable or prejudicial evidence that might render a trial fundamentally unfair." United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1106 (N.D.Ga.2003); see also United States v. Johnson, 239 F.Supp.2d 924, 946 (N.D.Iowa 2003) (holding that the FDPA "expressly supplants o......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, No. CR 01-3046-MWB.
...any type of unreliable or prejudicial evidence that might render a trial fundamentally unfair.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1106 (N.D.Ga.2003), and also citing this court's decision in Johnson, 239 F.Supp.2d at 946). Thus, § 848(j) also enhances rather than im......
Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
-
U.S. v. Le, No. CRIM. 1:03CR48.
...any type of unreliable or prejudicial evidence that might render a trial fundamentally unfair.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1106 In summary, as the Fifth Circuit correctly concluded, the relaxed evidentiary Page 608 standard set forth in § 3593(c) "does not im......
-
U.S. v. Rodriguez, Crim.No. C2-04-55.
...and must be charged in the indictment, while non-statutory factors need not be alleged in the indictment); United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1105 (N.D.Ga.2003) (non-statutory aggravating factors need not be alleged in the indictment because they do not increase the punishment); U......
-
U.S. v. Fell, Docket No. 02-1638.
...to exclude any type of unreliable or prejudicial evidence that might render a trial fundamentally unfair." United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1106 (N.D.Ga.2003); see also United States v. Johnson, 239 F.Supp.2d 924, 946 (N.D.Iowa 2003) (holding that the FDPA "expressly supplants o......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, No. CR 01-3046-MWB.
...any type of unreliable or prejudicial evidence that might render a trial fundamentally unfair.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Battle, 264 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1106 (N.D.Ga.2003), and also citing this court's decision in Johnson, 239 F.Supp.2d at 946). Thus, § 848(j) also enhances rather than im......
Request a trial to view additional results