United States Sixth Circuit

In death penalty habeas proceedings in a case in which petitioner effectuated a murder-for-hire against her husband, denial of habeas relief is affirmed where: 1) state courts reasonably applied Strickland by concluding that petitioner sabotaged her own defense, as counsel's performance is not deficient when counsel follows a client's instructions; 2) state courts reasonably applied Brady because even if certain letters were favorable evidence, and were suppressed by the state, petitioner was not prejudiced because she could have presented other evidence of her husband's affair but chose not to do so; and 3) state courts reasonably applied Lockett v. Ohio in refusing to admit testimony that she wanted to plead guilty in return for receiving a life sentence, because no court has held that failed plea negotiations may be admitted at a penalty-phase hearing.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/09/2008
• Published 12/09/2008

Judges

• Before:  BOGGS, Chief Judge;  and MERRITT and SILER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Gretchen L. Swift, Federal Public Defender's Office, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.  Gordon W. Smith, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Gretchen L. Swift, Christopher M. Minton, Federal Public Defender's Office, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.  Gordon W. Smith, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.