Boyd: New mitigating evidence would not have changed outcome

In Boyd v. Allen, No. 07-14098 (Jan. 8, 2010), the Court (2-1) (Barkett, J., dissenting) reversed a grant of habeas relief to an Alabama inmate sentenced to death for two 1986 murders. The Court recognized that the inmate’s trial counsel were ineffective for failing at the penalty phase to present mitigating evidence based on Boyd’s troubled childhood. However, balancing this evidence de novo against the aggravating evidence against Boyd of the brutal nature of his murders, the Court found no reasonable probability that the mitigating evidence would have changed the outcome of the penalty phase of the proceedings.