In Hunter v. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 04-13574 (Jan. 5, 2005), the Court (Carnes, Barkett, Hull) affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a Florida inmate sentenced to death for a 1992 murder.
The Court rejected the argument that Hunter’s trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest because members of his office, the Public Defender’s Office for Volusia County, had represented the prosecution’s lead witness in unrelated earlier criminal proceedings, and had failed to cross-examine this witness about is prior criminal record. The Court found no basis for overturning the state court determinations that trial counsel was unaware of the witness’ criminal history. The Court also found that Hunter failed to show that his counsel’s representation was adversely affected by the conflict of interest. The Court noted no evidence of an "actual" conflict of interest. The Court also found no evidence of an adverse effect on counsel’s performance. The Court further noted that even if its own precedents supported Hunter’s claim, under habeas law a state determination is deficient only when it is at odds with Supreme Court precedent, which was not the case here.
The Court also rejected the argument that counsel was deficient for failing to introduce photographs of the defendants after the murder, wearing a different shirt than the one witnesses ascribed to the shooter. The Court noted that all the photographs, taken together, could have hurt the defense because they showed that the defendant might have changed shirts after the murder.
