David Ronald CHANDLER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 97-6365.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 29, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. (Nos.
CV 95-H-8005-E, CR 90-H-266-E), James H. Hancock, Judge.
Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
BIRCH, Circuit Judge:
In 1991, Ronald David Chandler was convicted of, inter alia, procuring the killing of an
individual in connection with a continuing criminal enterprise, 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A),
and sentenced to death.(1) In this appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate and for a
new trial, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Chandler raises numerous claims related to
both his convictions and sentences. We conclude that Chandler received ineffective
assistance of counsel during the sentencing portion of his trial. We therefore vacate the
death sentence imposed in this case and remand for resentencing in light of this opinion.
We affirm Chandler's convictions and sentences with respect to all remaining claims.
I. BACKGROUND
Chandler's convictions arise from his involvement in the cultivation and distribution of
substantial quantities of marijuana, and his efforts to protect his profits derived from this
operation.(2) The jury found that Chandler offered to pay Charles Ray Jarrell, Sr., an
individual who assisted Chandler in various aspects of his marijuana enterprise, to kill
Marlin (Marty) Shuler, who Chandler learned had provided information to a local law
enforcement agency that could implicate Chandler with regard to his illegal activities.
The jury further found that Jarrell, who had his own reasons for disliking Shuler, shot and
killed Shuler after the two men had consumed a large quantity of beer and engaged in
target practice.
At the conclusion of Chandler's trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict at 1:50 in the
afternoon. The penalty hearing began the following morning at 9:00. At that hearing,
Chandler's lawyer, Drew Redden, introduced into evidence stipulations agreed to by the
government showing that (1) Chandler had no prior convictions, (2) Charles Ray Jarrell,
Sr. would not be prosecuted for Shuler's murder, and (3) a taped conversation that the
jury heard, in which Chandler stated that "he'd have to kill somebody" if he were "set
up," took place several months after Shuler's murder. See Exh. 15 at 12-30-32. Counsel
also elicited testimony from Chandler's mother, Irene Chandler, and wife, Deborah
Chandler. As statutory aggravating factors justifying the imposition of the death sentence,
the government alleged that (1) Chandler had engaged in conduct that he intended would
result-and did result-in Shuler's death, (2) Chandler procured Shuler's murder by
promising to pay something of pecuniary value, and (3) Chandler committed Shuler's
murder after substantial planning and premeditation. Although the jury did not find that
Chandler had committed Shuler's murder after substantial planning and premeditation, it
concluded that the government had proven two of three aggravating circumstances, and
recommended that Chandler be sentenced to death. Vol. 4-221.
SNIPPETS:
David Ronald CHANDLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
In 1991, Ronald David Chandler was convicted of, inter alia, procuring the killing of an
We conclude that Chandler received ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing
We affirm Chandler's convictions and sentences with respect to all remaining claims.
At that hearing, Chandler's lawyer, Drew Redden, introduced into evidence stipulations agreed
As statutory aggravating factors justifying the imposition of the death sentence, the
twenty-seven witnessespresented testimony of what they would have testified to at the penalty
The district court found that "the mitigation evidence that Chandler's trial counsel could
In reaching this determination, the court specifically found that many of the witnesses who
Chandler submits that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in the
Performance As noted earlier, Chandler avers that his trial counsel failed to prepare
At the evidentiary hearing on Chandler's § 2255 motion, Redden testified that he had made
Redden testified that on the afternoon on which Chandler was convicted, he asked Deborah
As is discussed further below, the testimony by friends, neighbors, and relatives presented
177 F.3d at 1201-02 ("Counsel presented no more than a hollow shell of the testimony
13 at 396, there is no evidence that Redden asked a single question or conducted any
Instead, the record indicates that counsel began his preparations for the penalty phase only
g circumstances would have been different.
EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: Today's court decides that Defendant's trial
To show evidence of defendant's prior good works, defense counsel in this case already had
Furthermore, this court has repeatedly rejected relying upon counsel's own admissions of
|
