# Thomas Knight A/k/a, Askari Abdullah Muhammad v. Richard L. Dugger and Tom Barton

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · August 23, 1989 · 863 F.2d 705

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478489

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas KNIGHT A/K/a, Askari Abdullah Muhammad, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard L. DUGGER and Tom Barton, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** August 23, 1989
- **Citations:** 863 F.2d 705
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tjoflat
- **Judges:** Roney, Tjoflat, Clark
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478489

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a conviction may be reversed based on the exclusion of evidence where there is either a clear error by the trial court in its evidentiary rulings or “compelling reasons for exceptions” to the rules of evidence
- noting that “[bjecause of the state of the law in Florida at the time of Knight’s trial, defense attorneys could not anticipate the conflict between the not yet decided Lockett decision and Florida’s law limiting a jury’s consideration of nonstatutory mitigating evidence”
- noting that a conviction must be reversed where there is "either clear error by the trial courts in their evidentiary rulings or compelling reasons for exceptions to state evidentiary or procedural rules”
- reasoning counsel may not be faulted for not presenting mitigating evidence after he investigated options, but defendant refused to permit presentation

## Opinion text

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the court’s judgment. I write separately merely to comment on the respondent’s argument that we should treat petitioner’s Lockett claim as procedurally barred.
This is a pre-Lockett case, in that petitioner was tried and sentenced before the Supreme Court decided Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 , 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). In pre-Lockett cases, as I noted in Hargrave v. Dugger, 832 F.2d 1528, 1539 (11th Cir.1987) (en banc) (Tjoflat, J., specially concurring), the Florida courts do not *759 apply their procedural default rules to bar review of Lockett claims. We are therefore obliged to review petitioner’s Lockett claim without requiring him to demonstrate cause for his state court procedural default. Id.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478489. Public record. Not legal advice.