Opposition Brief — Jessie Dotson, Petitioner v. Tennessee

NO. 23-6174

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JESSIE DOTSON,

Petitioner,

Vv.

TENNESSEE,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT

APPENDIX TO RESPONDENT?’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JONATHAN SKRMETTI

Attorney General and Reporter

State of Tennessee

ANDREE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN

Solicitor General

COURTNEY N. ORR

Deputy Attorney General

Counsel of Record

500 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.

P.O. Box 20207

Nashville, Tennessee 37202-0207

(615) 741-2455

Counsel for Respondent

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Order, Dotson v. State, No. 08-07688,

(Shelby County Crim. Ct. Sept. 29, 2017) .sisicssssscssscnrwvassvseverrccmesscevesvss 001

Appendix B: Order, Doston v. State, No. W2017-02550-CCA-R10-PD

(Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2018).............. csmmecsawsenanssaneesscnoenensmmersey > 003

Appendix C: Dotson v. State, No. W2017-02550-SC-R10-PD

(@lemmMay 105.2018) crcracran-ososeesersevsisnannesencnnecensoceemcronenennemmensnamarsassae: 2 006

Appendix D: Appellant’s Principal Brief,

Dotson v. State, No. W2019-01059-CCA-R3-PD (filed Dec. 11, 2020).......... 007

Appendix E: Appellant’s Principal Brief,

Dotson vy. State, No. W2019-01059-SC-R11-PC (filed Jan. 27, 2023)............ 219

Appendix A

IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF TENNESSEE

FOR THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS

DIVISION X

JESSIE DOTSON

*

*

*

*

Filed T- 21-/7 No. 08-07688

; oe Sede Cle#k capital post-conviction

, *

STATE OF TENNESSEE D; C.

*

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S AUGUST 31, 2017 MOTION TO VACATE DEATH

SENTENCES

This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s motion to vacate death sentences. The

Court having considered the motion and the state’s response to the motion, hereby DENIES the

motion to vacate death sentences.

This Court approved, ex parte, Petitioner’s request for funds in the amount requested to

employ the specific psychiatrist at issue. However, the Administrative Office of the Courts, by

letter dated March 21, 2017, denied the request indicating in part:

After a complete and thorough review of the submitted material, this Office concluded

that counsel has made the necessary showing of facts and circumstances supporting counsel’s

position that the services are necessary to ensure that the constitutional rights of Mr. Dotson

are properly protected, However, Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13 does not authorize the $350 per hour

rate for services sought by [the requested psychiatrist].

The order authorizing funds together with this recommendation were forwarded to AOC

Director Deborah Taylor Tate for review. Director Tate concurred with the recommendation

to approve [the requested psychiatrist] at the rate of $250 per hour as permitted in Tenn. Sup.

Ct. R. 13 but not to approve [the requested psychiatrist’s] stated rate of $350 per hour. In

accordance with the procedures for further review set out in Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13,{Section

5(e)(5), the Chief Justice reviewed all materials provided to the AOC concerning this matter

and concurred with Director Tate’s decision. The Chief Justice’s decision is final!

001

Because petitioner has not been denied the request of all expert assistance in the area of

psychiatry, Petitioner’s constitutional rights are not violated. As such, Petitioner’s Motion To

Vacate Death Sentences is hereby, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED higAr fasy of September, 2017.

dge James C. Beasley, Jr. Y~

iv.10

0 209

002

Appendix B

FILED

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE |“.

AT JACKSON Appellate Courts

JESSIE DOTSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 08-07688

No. W2017-02550-CCA-R10-PD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant’s “application for permission

to appeal, pursuant to T.R.A.P. 10, the post-conviction court’s denial of his motion to

vacate death sentences.” The State has filed a response in opposition to the application.

The Defendant was convicted of six counts of premeditated first degree murder

and three counts of attempted first degree murder. After conviction, the jury sentenced

the Defendant to death for each conviction of first degree murder. Following a separate

sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple

offender to forty years for each conviction for attempted first degree murder, to be served

consecutively to each other and to the first degree murder sentences. On appeal, the

conviction and sentences were affirmed by this Court and by our Supreme Court. The

Defendant has now filed a petition for post-conviction relief. During the pursuit of that

matter, he alleged that the assistance of expert witnesses was necessary. Upon motion,

the post-conviction court granted the request of the Defendant to employ an expert in the

amount of $350.00 per hour. However, even after approval of the post-conviction court,

the Administrative Office of the Courts later denied the request of the Defendant and

limited expert compensation to $250.00 per hour as established by the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee. After the limitation of funding by the

Administrative Office of the Courts, the Defendant filed a motion to vacate death

sentences alleging that he had been denied access to expert services. The post-conviction

court denied the motion to vacate death sentences and the Defendant has sought

permission to appeal from this Court.

003

Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 10(a) provides, “An extraordinary appeal

may be sought on application and in the discretion of the appellate court alone of

interlocutory orders of a lower court from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court,

Court of Appeals[,] or Court of Criminal Appeals. . . .” Extraordinary appeals are

appropriate only “(1) if the lower court has so far departed from the accepted and usual

course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review, or (2) if necessary for

complete determination of the action on appeal as otherwise provided in [the Rules of

Appellate Procedure].” Tenn. R. App. P. 10(a). As explained in the Advisory

Commission Comment to Rule 10, “[t]he circumstances in which review is available . . .

are very narrowly circumscribed to those situations in which the trial court or the

intermediate appellate court has acted in an arbitrary fashion, or as may be necessary to

permit complete appellate review on a later appeal.”

The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated:

An appellate court should grant a Rule 10 extraordinary appeal only when

the challenged ruling represents a fundamental illegality, fails to proceed

according to the essential requirements of the law, is tantamount to the

denial of a party’s day in court, is without legal authority, is a plain or

palpable abuse of discretion, or results in either party losing a right to

interest that may never be recaptured.

Gilbert v. Wessels, 458 S.W.3d 895, 898 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. McKim, 215

S.W.3d 781, 791 (Tenn. 2007); State v. Willoughby, 594 S.W.2d 388, 392 (Tenn. 1980)).

Appeals pursuant to Rule 10 “are reserved only for extraordinary departures from the

accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings.” Jd. (emphasis in original).

In this matter, the Defendant seeks review of the post-conviction court’s decision

not to vacate the death penalty of the Defendant. As stated earlier, the motion to vacate

was not based on an alleged failure by the trial court but upon actions taken by the

Administrative Office of the Courts. From a review of the pleadings presented, we

cannot find that the refusal to vacate the death sentences of the Defendant extraordinarily

departs from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in such a manner that

would allow for the granting of a Rule 10 appeal. We do not reach the issue of whether

the trial court’s ruling was proper. Rather, we conclude that the trial court’s ruling and

actions did not so depart from the accepted and usual course of conduct to rise to the

level contemplated by the high standards of a Rule 10 extraordinary appeal. This ruling

does not preclude future review of this decision and even with this ruling the Petitioner

retains the right to address this issue on appeal following the entry of any final judgment

of the trial court. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 38(b)(2). As such, this Court cannot find that the

necessary tenets of Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure have been met

to grant the application of the Defendant and to allow the appeal of this matter.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s application for an extraordinary

004

appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure is DENIED.

The costs of this appeal are taxed to the Defendant.

PER CURIAM

ALAN E, GLENN, JUDGE

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JUDGE

J. Ross DYER, JUDGE

005

Appendix C

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JESSIE DOTSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 08-07688

No. W2017-02550-SC-R10-PD

ORDER

FILED

05/10/2018

Clerk of the

Appellate Courts

Upon consideration of the Rule 10 application for extraordinary appeal of the

defendant, Jessie Dotson, and the record before us, the application is denied. Costs are

taxed to the State of Tennessee.

PER CURIAM

006

Appendix D

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

AT JACKSON

JESSIE DOTSON, )

) No. W2019-01059-CCA-R3-PD

Appellant, )

) Shelby County Criminal Court

Vv. ) No. 08-07688

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) CAPITAL CASE

) POST-CONVICTION

)

Appellee. )

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Andrew L. Harris, BPR No. 34989

Assistant Post-Conviction Defender

harrisa@tnpcdo.net

Christopher M. Minton BPR No. 14414

Assistant Post-Conviction Defender

mintonc@tnpedo.net

Office of the Post-Conviction Defender

P.O. Box 198068

Nashville, Tennessee 37219-8068

(615) 741-9331

Facsimile: (615) 741-9430

Counsei for Appellant Jessie Dotson

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities sscscucsscccusseesssasccussnaatanraccssraauscsanscscnscountasenanesescuniieanenasessceseerseasicansecenscasoreeesorsers xi

Citations to the RECOrd.........ccccssccesenctscceseseccetensseasazeanensessenees _ ees perseaeeaeereee RXVI

Issues Presented for REVIEW ..........ceeecseereees aTeazSPawae vest Wavassacaeesaratat tgeasFaatstsT Sen TTREVE SonaTaas seseees XXVUdi

Statement Of the Case........csscccccseceseesecesetsseecssssersseceeeeensaseenenseassensesneteneees Diaenell lett. Lennecediatnet¥ese XXX

Statement of the Facts........:cccseseers wativerdsarvaseTietone sae seagueeaeteasanes Sab eg UT aTa Ee a sSTaTeTaty Ta sFaCTig TaN aaTeatTeeT 1

L After Cecil Dotson, Jr. (“C.J.”) told police “Uncle Junior” or others committed the

Lester Street attacks, police confined Mr. Dotson in an interrogation r00M ........-.-+--sses 2

II. A First 48 camera videotaped Mr. Dotson’s custodial interrogation and

police interactions with Priscilla Shaw. ...........sscssseeessennensesesessessstsnsssasocasuseessnenennenenenses 2

IJ. After trial counsel neglected to subpoena to the preliminary hearing First 48 videotape of

Mr. Dotson’s custodial interrogation and police interactions with Ms. Shaw, Granada

Entertainment destroyed it... ececessceseeceseeseesccescesssnecscesenaceseseeseaensenesesenensnraneesensensensys 5

IV. The trial — guilt stage ............. swansereaveussanitsMwayseTvxarsoeneriesMesnaet para ee nce ee ensotevecnnctle 6

A. Trial counsel did not file pre-trial motions seeking suppression of

Mr. Dotson’s statements ............:eceseseseseteees Sy er es pela ee 6

B. Trial counsel were unaware that a neuropsychological evaluation of C.J.

reported that he has significant impairments in long-term memory recall .............. 7

C. The prosecution presented jurors nearly 200 graphic crime scene photographs .....8

D. Trial counsel waited until the middle of the trial to make a passing challenge to

the Shaw Statement ...........c.cssescsscseesseessessecssesaeeeeceeecerseaseeeesesseetesees naveasoogedSecctvaeeses 8

E. The State’s case consisted of Mr. Dotson’s statements and the unreliable

testimony of C.J. and his younger brother Cedrick .....1....scsssssssseeseseeecesessdeeesneeesees 9

F. Jurors rejected defense counsel’s “gang hit” alternative theory and

Mr. Dotson’s testimony about what he did during the attacks ............ssssesteeseeees 10

V. At Mr. Dotson’s sentencing hearing, trial counsel presented little evidence

respecting Mr. Dotson’s traumatic life history, and they presented no expert

mental health testimony «0.0... .csecscessssecsersssneersscesessesseesencessersseeseeearseseseretensegansesateesensaes 11

008

VI. Mr. Dotson’s direct appeal challenges to his statements foundered for a lack of

CVIGEMCE oo... ceecscessasccesscecescessscesceececsesersesaneesseessecesssecsteesecssssesacansseeessneceensraceaseeneeeuseseeenenneries 13

VII. The Administrative Office of the Courts Director and Tennessee Supreme Court

Chief Justice vacated the post-conviction court’s expert funding OrdeTs .........sseeceeseeeeee 14

A. The AOC Director and Chief Justice vacated the post-conviction court’s

order authorizing funds for the services of Bhushan S. Agharkar, M.D.

(psychiatrist) ............:-sssessnsssponsssseorosscussonsosnnonsnosenesensnstseneavequapenenesesensersonenesensonees 14

B. The AOC Director and Chief Justice vacated the post-conviction court’s order

authorizing funds for the services of James R. Merikangas, M.D.

(psychiatrist/neurologist) ........ssccscesseseseseseasesesenenseneesaesensnseacnescessestsaseneeseesseseanens 16

C. The AOC Director and Chief Justice vacated the post-conviction court’s order

authorizing funds for the services of Richard Leo, Ph.D., J.D. (false confession

EXPEMT) 0... eeeeecsceeeeneeeee ee es EE irene Fagin sagan Ee EET 17

D. The AOC Director and Chief Justice vacated the post-conviction court’s order

authorizing funds for the services of Dr. James Walker.............-::.scsseesenererseenseees 18

VIII. The post-conviction court ruled that Mr. Dotson had not presented adequate

evidence on his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his

sentencing heaving ........-..seceeeresees eee Siew Stan win SPOEEF¥> Soe FeUGAE TSAO ESTE SaseSA CEST TSTTISEGE 19

Standards of REView ....,.scscscccsesccesecssssescnessnsseees erhenalb senate lad scPecBanes Stag sacle. tae Saget green sed

ATQUMEME wie eeeete se ceeetecescanensecenscrsentansensaensetesesennenns Fea eee eee weeeshie’ Tectas cacusweaaTEvaye re 22

1. Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when they

failed to pursue suppression of Mr. Dotson’s statements ....,.....ccceersseeers a! ee. 22

A. Because arguable grounds existed to seek suppression of the Armstrong and Shaw

Statements, trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to pursue

Suppression Of theM .....cscseceneecssssesesereaseenesseens aTTLTRETTETS sveapnneursace vyansersdSoeneS- D2

B. Had trial counsel pursued suppression of the Armstrong and Shaw Statements,

a reasonable probability exists that the result of the proceeding against

Mr. Dotson would have been different ..............cseseceres Rivets PISTEET ede SEeas FOSS wae23

1. A reasonable probability exists that the trial court would have suppressed

the Armstrong Statement based on a violation of Mr. Dotson’s right

against self-incrimimation....-......ccsssetesesesceescereascsseseseecseeeneccnereassgeesee peeeeeld

2. A reasonable probability exists that the trial court would have suppressed

the Armstrong Statement based on a conclusion that it was the

ii

009

II.

Til.

involuntary product of police COETCION ..0.2....esssestesnsstsseseeesseeeseceenesserecens 25

3. A reasonable probability exists that the trial court would have suppressed

the Shaw Statement based on a finding that Ms. Shaw acted on behalf

of police when she elicited it scsscsssecosssscesocssestinistesscsssanstiicencaascassasnsesssensy- 28

4. A reasonable probability exists that the result of a trial without Mr.

Dotson’s statements would have been different ............cseseeceeeersserereees 29

C. The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief ........cesscseceeereseneeeesereneecenens 31

Mr. Dotson’s counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution

and the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when they failed to obtain videotape of Mr. Dotson’s custodial interrogation and

police interactions with Ms. Shaw... saSabaswagsvaN Gn does wT eaues = Sieawasworael i Sae casdadeseasenaawe 32

A. Trial counsel performed deficiently when he failed to subpoena the First 48 raw

footage to Mr. Dotson’s preliminary hearing ...........esssssssseseceersesessesteseesnereescens 32

B Trial counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Mr. Dotson.........ssscerssssreesssees 34

1, A reasonable probability exists that trial counsel could have overcome

Granada’s invocation of Tennessee’s media shield statute... 34

a. A reasonable probability exists that trial counsel could have

overcome Granada’s invocation of the media shield statute

under the terms of that statute... sssecsssestesesesreestsesseseseeees 35

b. A reasonable probability exists that trial counsel could have

overcome Granada’s invocation of the media shield statute by

invoking Mr. Dotson’s constitutional right to present a defense ...36

2. A reasonable probability exists that had counsel obtained videotape

of Mr. Dotson’s custodial interrogation and police interactions with Ms.

Shaw, the result of the proceeding against Mr. Dotson

would have been different... ccctesccsscesesesessecsessesssssnstansesarsssesessneceeeeees 38

D. The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief .,........secsseseersesseees Perce 39

Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when they

failed to challenge the State’s failure to preserve videotape of Mr. Dotson’s

custodial interrogation and police interactions With Ms. Shaw........cssssssssssecsseserensens 39

A. Trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to argue that the State

violated due process by failing to preserve evidence it knew was helpful

iti

010

to the Mefense ......ececcsessereccrcsscecscccosseesvessseeceersucescsneaseeseeseneserssecarecnsecseesseeoesasenenea® 40

le

The exculpatory value of videotape depicting Mr. Dotson’s custodial

interrogation and police interactions with Ms. Shaw was apparent

before it was lOSt................assdeansobasesddadenbdensussueneundadusenedeseassdindacssencctsnsenscads 40

The videotape contained incomparable evidence reflecting events

surrounding Mr. Dotson’s statement ........ssscsccscseresesreereeetsseeenetseseeenersees 40

The State’s agreement with Granada Entertainment did not relieve the

State of its duty to preserve evidence helpful to Mr. Dotson’s defense ....41

a. Granada Entertainment’s conduct was fairly attributable to the

State... ccccccseccssreeseeenseees weegaeseapstieensaeeas Pata Frerar frdaw eas sereastvselnenss Tapes 41

(i). The creation of the videotape resulted from the agreement

the police entered into with Granada Entertainment.......... 41

(ii). | Transcribing a police interrogation and witness interview

are fairly characterized as the work of a State actor.......... 42

b. The Memphis Police Department and Granada Entertainment

agreed they could amend the provisions of their agreement.......... 44

Trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to argue that the State

violated due process by failing to preserve evidence potentially helpful

to the defense ,.......... aceutaseeseses sceveaseguesesers seutenatecerereusees aveleasetTessree Ctexaia gee ee)

ly

Trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to argue that the

State violated Article I, § 8 of the Tennessee Constitution by failing to

preserve videotape of Mr. Dotson’s custodial interrogation and

police interactions With Ms. Shaw.......scssssecssesesseessrepeerennererersensntereeens wwe

a. The State had a duty to preserve the Videotape. ...........-cescsseeseeeeess 46

b. The State made no effort to preserve the videotape...........:ssesen 46

c. The videotape provided uniquely compelling evidence that could

have resulted in the suppression of Mr. Dotson’s statements........ 46

d. Without Mr. Dotson’s statements, the State’s case rested on the

unreliable testimomy Of two Children ......cesesssscesseeteeteessseseseenees 47

Trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to argue that the

State violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution by failing to preserve videotape of Mr. Dotson’s

iv

011

custodial interrogation and police interactions with Ms. Shaw...........:4 47

C. Counsel’s deficient performances prejudiced Mr. Dotson. .........:.sceeeesseereeeeerees 50

D. The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief ........sescseseseenessrensesseeeeeseeses 51

IV. The State violated Article I §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Sixth,

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when it failed to

preserve videotape of Mr. Dotson’s custodial interrogation and police interactions

With MS. Shaw :csssiussssunusssavacncaecesasnecsnaaesbveenssamenamssursancoxstessscscsscsseserssenesancansceanprereaceanenseneas 52

V. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when they failed to present evidence that a

neuropsychological evaluation of C.J. reported that he had long-term memory deficits,

and the State wrongly withheld the C.J. evaluation .........cccceeseseseseneeesenessetensensenascateeaees 52

A. Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and

the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when they failed to present evidence that a neuropsychological evaluation

reported that C.J. had long-term memory impairments .............ccserecenesereeeeeteees 53

1. The post-conviction court found that the prosecution made C.J.’s

evaluation available to the defemse ...............ccsesssssscssererensererenereeeeeseeeseeeees 53

2. Trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to challenge

C.J.’s testimony with his evaluation 0.0.0.0... cccssceseeeseseeseeeeeseeeeeeeteeeeeneenee 54

3. Trial counsel’s deficient performance prejudice Mr. Dotson...........1s0099

4, The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief..............00+ es)

B. The State violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when it withheld C.J.’s neuropsychological evaluation.........ccscsseseseressenereeeeeneenes 56

1. The prosecution withheld favorable material eVIdENCe .......scsseecerereseeesess 56

2. The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief .....,......scccssssereeesreoes 57

VI. Trial counsel violated Article J, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when they

failed to object to the introduction into evidence of inflammatory photographs............-. 57

VII. Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when

they failed to prepare Mr. Dotson for his testiMOny.........c.sesessereesseenseretsersnseeneenstsnenseesness 61

012

VII.

IX.

Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when they

failed to present mitigating evidence at Mr. Dotson’s capital sentencing hearing............ 62

A. Counsel has a duty to prepare for the sentencing phase ..........ssceseeeeereresesenseeseerees 62

B. Trial counsel failed to meaningfully investigate, develop, and present evidence

of Mr. Dotson’s traumatic and troubled life history «20.0.0... cesses sessesseseneseceeseetes 68

ec Trial counsel failed to present a mental health expert ............:.ccccccccsseeeeeecseseneeeseee 77

D. The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief .......... ccs eeeeeteseeseeeseeeeessees 87

The cumulative impact of trial counsel’s deficient performances renders

Mr. Dotson’s convictions and/or death sentences unconstitutional.............. Bie ARaaaaeeatgy sores 90

The AOC Director and Chief Justice improperly vacated the post-conviction court’s

expert funding Orders ............scsccsccseecersesecesseseeseeassnnaccossessseaceecentersseorssnrssneseatacsraaaeseesanserne 91

A. The AOC review process requires death-sentenced petitioners to obtain

AOC approval of post-conviction court funding OrderS........cccceseeeseseeccesceeneteees 92

B. The actions the AOC Director and Chief Justice took pursuant to the

AOC review process are INVAlId oc. ecceesscceettsesssscerssseneereessreestsneneens seawnssenea lle 93

1. By engaging in a substantive review of the post-conviction court’s funding

orders and vacating them, the AOC Director and Chief Justice violated

Articles I, §§ 1 & 2 and VI §§ 1, 2 & 3 of the Tennessee Constitution ...93

2, Because the AOC Director and Chief Justice failed to provide Mr. Dotson

notice of the issues and evidence they would consider, they violated

Article I, § 8 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2.0... ces ssseceseererecsseeeeeses 95

a. The post-conviction court’s funding orders created property

interests that due process protects against arbitrary deprivation ...95

b. The AOC Director and Chief Justice violated due process when

they failed to provide Mr. Dotson notice of the issues and evidence

they would consider during their review of the post-conviction

Court’s funding OTETS ..........cccescsereesenseteeeseeeessssseesseesseeaeeseneeaseeesees 97

3. The AOC Director and Chief Justice’s decisions vacating the postconviction court’s funding orders violated Mr. Dotson’s right to a full and

fair hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and violated

Article I, §§ 8 & 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution..........csseseee 99

vi

013

XI.

XII.

ie This Court must remand Mr. Dotson’s case to the post-conviction court

for further proceedings... cece eseesceesersssssessessssssenscseesseeesearesssesseseestenseenaees 104

Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by failing to

object when the State attached a stun cuff to Mr. Dotson; the State violated

due process when it attached the stun Cuff... seeesseesesnsessessseeeessenssensesenenseseennaes 106

A. This court must remand Mr. Dotson’s claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective

assistance when they failed to object to the imposition of the stun cuff........0.... 106

1. Trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to assert that due

process precluded the State from attaching a stun cuff to Mr. Dotson....107

2 This Court must remand for further proceedings on the Strickland

PLejUdice INqQUITY ....rrcccereneseorecsareoncrersnseronestennronsnsesusdtesssasianjseassasusepeasineats 108

B Mr. Dotson is entitled to relief on his claim that the State violated due process

when it attached a stun Cuff to Wim... nese recsseseseeesssesseseneseernvateceecuvenseeseees 110

The post-conviction court erred when it denied Mr. Dotson relief on his jury selection

[SSUCS .....,csccssscsesceccecsssseseseeetcssssaccccessececacssctecsscanenecsestccersesetesssssdsenestsoesssseetanssessasrevadenees 111

A. Trial counsel violated Article J, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and

the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when they failed to challenge the trial court’s death qualification procedures....11]

B. Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and

the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when they failed to question prospective jurors about racial and implicit biases112

Cc, Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and

the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when they failed to rehabilitate prospective JULOTS .........cccsssrseestseeseetensessrseenes 117

1. Trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to rehabilitate

PLOSPECHIVE JULOTS 0.1... cseessccenssctonseesorsreerssceaeessersneseseuasernetseaess ote TL ato 117

Pr Trial counsel’s failure to rehabilitate prospective jurors prejudiced Mr.

Dotson’s defense ........secscscceccssecserenssoessssscasnecesssoscoeenetveeaecansessesscsaseesense 118

D. Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and

the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when they failed to challenge for cause a juror whose views substantially

impaired his ability to consider mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing ..121

Vil

014

1. Trial counsel performed deficiently when they failed to remove juror

Ray from the jury pannel wv. ccsescssessessscsecsenscsserseresssscsesassnsncestensessenease 122

2. Trial counsel’s failure to remove prospective juror Ray from the

jury panel prejudiced Mr. Dotson’s defense ........cssssseeeceeenesstssenertcentenes 123

E. Juror Ray’s service on Mr. Dotson’s sentencing jury violated Article I, §§ 8 and

16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution ....cicsecssessesssetsenterse aaa. eT 124

F. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when they failed to exhaust their

peremptory Challenges............ssssssssssssercssensscsessssecsesssseessscneasesscosesenseeneonsreseensests 125

XII. Trial counsel violated Article L, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when they

failed to object to inadmissible testimony and stipulated to specified evidence ............. 125

XIV. Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when they

failed to challenge effectively the testimony of State WitMeSSES..........:.ssssessseseretenescens 130

XV. Mr. Dotson’s counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution

and the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when they failed to object to inflammatory and irrelevant testiMONY ...........s0eeseeseneseeees 136

XVI. Trial counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when they

made improper comments during opening statement at the sentencing hearing............. 139

XVII. Mr. Dotson’s counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution

and the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution

when they failed to prevent and/or challenge the prosecution’s improper closing

ATBUMEN .....-cscecececsveesecessecensecnrerncesonesevaeceacesseesassecgunsvenseersteentnasaensaasasacenooesnecansesogeoeaneeas ese 140

XVIII. The prosecution violated Article I, §§ 8, 9 and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution and the

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when it

made improper remarks during closing argument ....1.,...s.ccssssseseseecsseecneeerecanesererecsoneeesoes 148

XIX. Mr. Dotson’s counsel violated Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee Constitution

and the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

when they failed to challenge/request jury inStrUctiOnS.........cccsecseseeeeeeeseeneeneseneerenentes 149

A. Trial counsel failed to object to the instruction requiring jurors to consider the

court’s substantive instructions in a specific Oder ou... ceseseessessessssreteessecsseaeeens 149

B. Trial counsel failed to object to the eyewitness identification instruction........... 150

viii

015

Cs Trial counsel failed to object to confusing sentencing instructions regarding

unanimity and failed to request an instruction explaining the consequences

Of a hung Sentencing JULY... cescccessenseeseecescssensseseteceeteetunnesesessssecesssrensssceeensenes 154

D. Trial counsel failed to object to defective reasonable doubt instructions............ 157

E. Appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise challenges to the trial

COUIT’S JULY IMSEIUCTIONS ........ cc sceeccecseseeceescestecescesceeseoesceeeens Oe eee 159

XX. Mr. Dotson’s convictions and death sentences are the product of a coerced verdict

targeting the sole black male juror, racial animus, extraneous prejudicial information,

outside influences, and premature deliberations........... 2.2.5 Meee ee eT 159

A, Coerced verdict .......ccccccccscccscccestsereccaseecssssesssnscsessenssaaesscnvsoesesensasssnnssssesensnacseesseste 159

B. Racial AMIMUG.........ccseccsscssssessscecnersssnereessctesentesssonseenesensesecscsesuaesenerssadecranneareennts 162

C. Extraneous prejudicial information and outside influences..........ccccceceseceseeseeeeee 162

D. Premature deliberations ............:csccssescessesscsesseeeseessseseseseessscsessesssesseegesesescessseseeses 163

E. The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief .........sssesecsssessssetenessesesees 164

XXI. The Tennessee Supreme Court’s proportionality review violated Article I, §§ 8 and 16 of

the Tennessee Constitution and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution .......cceccecseseeeesssceesesceseeseeseessessssesensessessssersnensseeesseesenseneeseneeesseenerees 167

A. The Tennessee Supreme Court’s consideration of only those cases in which the

State sought the death penalty deprived Mr. Dotson of an adequate

PTOpOrtionality reVICW.....:c.ecescccccnersssssserserenaseesenee aedanbaedncpernedevages ffanssetbastst¥te+ x1 67

B. Trial counsel’s ineffective assistance deprived Mr. Dotson of his right to

proportionality review........... ae BE nen Say «SE eR 168

C. The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief ..........cscsssccersescesessseecesenenee 169

XXII. Mr. Dotson’s death sentences violate Article I, §§ 8, 9, and 16 of the Tennessee

Constitution and the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution because the judge made factual findings necessary to impose the

death penalty ...........sssescsssessccecsesecenecscorsersssrescecsnesseessatsoreseteareessrseresaseresserasnsensesaesesasenaess 170

A. Hurst v. Florida precludes judges from finding facts necessary for the

imposition of a death sentence........ esscasereseessuisessscsesencess ee nn 170

B. Acting as a thirteenth juror, the trial court rendered findings required for

imposition of Mr. Dotson’s death sentences........sccssscsesssssssscsssseteseresssssessses teens 170

ix

016

C. The post-conviction court erroneously denied relief .............:cecceceseecseeseseeeseesseees 172

XXIII. Mr. Dotson’s death sentences violate his fundamental right to life... scccessscsersen 172

XXIV. Mr. Dotson’s convictions and death sentences violate Article VI, Clause 2,

of the United States Constitution ........csccccccsccsscceserccensssscesetessasseceessncesensancessacccersedensersense 175

XXV. Tennessee’s death penalty scheme violates Article I, §§ 8 and 16 of the Tennessee

Constitution and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

COMSTILULION.........0-0.0ccsscccveroctibssstscastbacdisccseccadbseesccseinidssceensencccesenvercsnstecssnsasssonscesansarenes 1176

XXVI. Tennessee’s execution methods violate Article I, §§ 8 and 16 of the Tennessee

Constitution and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

CONSTITUTION .........:ccccccccsesscscsscsscstcnsccsscsrsccccsscusonssscessececssoseusuesecersrsaesanesesessavecessesnceseresaenses 179

XXVII.Cumulative error invalidates Mr. Dotson’s convictions and/or sentences ..............+« severe 79

CONCLUSION W...eecccectsssseesssessccees an ces a 180

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............-- ee er ee ee 180

x

017

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Adams v. Texas,

448 U.S. 38 (1980)......... Mereonlssverses enti coces isesiVoasesunnsasevelssTiasbeenistusstisaad vitdWsccsssersaTsectcseies™s 121, 122

Affinito v. Hendricks,

366 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2004)... .sssssesessceseescetetesorensesessescsessscsssssssceesrsssssanevsssaessesnsnserisessserasess Ol

Ake v. Oklahoma,

470 U.S. 68 (1985) ....ecceessereseececsessresceanssesceseonee waeeases eee sgpeBenaresTeseveeaee ee 99, 100, 102

Allen v. United States,

164 U.S. 492 (1896) oo. cccseesssssscarerereseeaesetaersencevesseessapeenesraresuusaeseaarascos erearasreceses oes = er 161

Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000) 00... ceesecscesescessessescsesseesssssssscsensssenenssssesaseneeesaatceseecsesesersceeseneneecearsesesessues 178

Arizona v. Fulminate,

499 U.S. 279 (1991) ..ceeecsccscccccncececsescecesecsesessenssaessseesevssssessseseseseseneraseeets peo ar oe 26, 38

Arizona v. Youngblood,

488 U.S. 51 (1988) uu... eeeececcsctsereeescesseseceeneceseeasenseesensenaes warcuuelldsaneeusneotves scav tienes ts 47, 50, 53, 54

Atkins v. Virginia,

536 U.S. 304 (2002)... cccsssesseceereeteeeeseeeteees ish atba ul oepagTPERTIN oFrvweasPissenccvecsecceuneaceed@olbereelzacceesie 173

Baxter v. Rose,

§23 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975)... eeseneeeeeee NUreagTaas STaaavasaaTibaesotT cap eTeTT TE araperss Sagerea Tae 34, 118

Bellafant v. State,

1998 WL 242449 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998)... saceecnevenetecacensees ragcanenesnsytansenteSbad¥bar asesseneees 22

Bemore v. Chappell,

788 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2015)... ec eete sea reeserenseeees eae ss ee 91

Bernal v. Fainter,

467 U.S. 216 (1984) ....--eseee sauedscceesnerers+sustBonssDbavedhnaidendtonascakte ee een ee. 172

Blackburn vy, Foltz,

828 F.2d 1177 (6th Cir. 1987)... ee seseccsnsecascsnsstsssscaveasceaessusssersunenensey Bree 132, 133

Board of Regents v. Roth,

408 U.S. 564 (1972) .0.....cecssscsssteccsnssccessecseasesnses scecseceessceseesessescesueesenssestuaceesensssresessssensensersrsseee 96

Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas—Best Freight System, Ine.,

419 US. 281 (1974) wie ccccsssccecsseeeserseeccessteceesseseesssssscessersesnsessneatessecenanens gosscseronssaatoresonseanceiboiis 97

Branzburs v. Hayes,

408 U.S. 665 (1972)......... Se ie Pee ETT Oe Mrerocn RaeeraageeTeeaT TT SSSSTSOT SSIS saa iTS 0 SE's SSSTSESS Geo oy SITS 37

Breard v. Greene,

523 U.S. 371 (1998)......... Reg WoW SS RRS ERS S ESET SSUES FERSTERESENECSY ee aresliNeneaaderessinwasanneseaes eeeeorseseeeerey wessseee L7S

Brodes v. State,

614 S.E.2d 766 (Ga. 2005)......cscsssersceencceceneeseereedesstvacorsrssessaeeeones sveneesseetenees setasetsenenees aeseeresee 152

Brooks v. Tennessee,

406 U.S. 605 (1972)...........-- Pi wc SEIT SET TEC CSTE eT ETE ata ae Sa TT a aay ETS E EA TRSTOUSTTIEY 61

Brown y. Entertainment Merchants Association,

564 U.S. 786 (2011) ....cesscessccsensessensesessesceceseeesserecenerscesssceusavenesnasssassoucesssevenssessatanensessenseasanaes 173

Xi

018

Buck v. Davis,

137 S.Ct. 759 (2017)... saseecessaserdtvecee socesdteuneeacuncseveccasdectesseeegnsatenscssscasecatess ss sQUpSESaeuSESEDROL 162

Bullcoming v. New Mexico,

564 US. 647 (2011) ..eeecccesescsssscseccetececsceeseesscesceseeseseneeseasescceenensieedenseseserseeseasneaseaenedsoteeenreesne 126

Burford v. State,

845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992)... eeescssescesseneceneneeeseerscevatsensneessarsidessasaneseuaersndsaceseensseerenertes 102

Burns v. Gammon,

260 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2001)... ec eeesssssscenssecssecsseesensonesssengessecesseesecsscsesaneatereseneees pegseresas 153

Bush v. Gore,

S531 U.S. 98 (2000) .csccccnccceesecsssccsneeseoscuseevecessecorseceresorcone ORSMNANACn Mo DROPaDenNNRREReNDRESenyRRENreneenEDeNEND 177

Butler v. State,

1988 WL 63526 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988)............ GSS See aa TR ican Ta aca eesetS 5 eaaiisceeee 115

Cage v. Louisiana,

498 U.S. 39 (1990) 00... eccceeesceceeneseee Sehivesnansesta san baa sognv oes des va eccusstvadsa eat tanetensvandeTbanentesaamstesusass 158

California v. Trombetta,

467 U.S. 479 (1984) vu. cceccctsstssnsesccerterserensonsesersceeseesenesenes sovtennereseorscesaseararennassacereecazervarereres 40, 90

Cargle v. Mullin,

317 F.3d 1196 (1Oth Cir. 2003) ssissssssssccsscveccacsesscvesseiersiiesesece cu -e-cacsenenssnnnestnas wnanceasseasesaceseenrs 132

Carter v. Bell,

218 F.3d 581 (6th Cir, 2000)... ceeeeecseeesceeseeceneeeceaesegeeenseeecnssscssaseasoesesensenerasessseuserseseneesasenee 68

Cauthern v. State,

145 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) cc cccecsssesssecesssaeetrsenstesncnsoneences sceasreTea oT Bef a... 57

Chambers v. Mississippi,

410 U.S. 284 (1973) ccscsssccesssasctenoennansenaaeniomrnenennmedssno ierenecbeasaneie veenespanmetconeevemanemenennnensiion 36

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,

558 U.S. 310 (2010)... essescsserectsereecensecesensesees seni seeeTVlesonasbecones end ra eBReTboouttedhoeeTesTToacandaaatte 173

Claudio v. Scully,

982 F.2d 798 (2d Cir, 1992)... cee ecssesenseeesennsecbentsceuneneceseoeceseoens ae guszuraetanevsieoteetes erecseren 138

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill,

470 U.S. 532 (1985) ..nceccssseeseeeereceeseceeesceneatece seusSTesnesunssoassenangsi@7inaee secssseastessesenscastvanerseesees 90, 97

Cole v. State,

2011 WL 1090152 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011)... ccesccsstcssesersrenesesessacesssesseessessnsnesseensnnenees 68

Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan,

263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008)..........scscsescseresscesccnerenernees 7 wa slrn al oe see! 21

Combs v. Coyle,

205 F.3d 269 (6th Cir. 2000)...........csccsssceeserees eee aren Se vadUaSSEin sues Tone Daee Teague aE EVIE coee NST TT 153

Commonwealth v. Santoli,

680 N.E.2d 1116 (Mass. 1997) 000... cessssscssssossssccestcssssesrescssnonsscsseacssorscaeneteosansuecestacsesessecsenenes 152

Cooper v. State,

847 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) ..ccccecsscsessessscssssssesssssssessenssessesesenssestasaseseneeeeneones 63

Cox v. Ayers,

613 F.3d 883 (9th Cir, 2010)... eee eeecssceseeeceeeees fs Sees se Sages SaageTeews ass STs <SSEe veg SaOsTERT Saas MASTS STET 174

Crane v. Kentucky,

476 U.S. 683 (1986) 0... seeceeteeneetens eee feeee seco eee sepeseeeeeeeeereetseeepeee eos deseseesaeenees aseseneeenesees 36

Crawford v. Washington,

541 U.S. 36 (2004) ou. escesseereeesreeneeenseneee a a 125, 126

xii

019

Cribbs v. State,

2009 WL 1905454 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009)... cceceeeceeseeeeeeeeeseseecenseeesneteetesteaseeseeeeeense 68, 69

Crotts v. Smith,

73 F.3d 861 Oth Cir. 1996) csssscccsscsssservcstsonsaucooussbecsesnesncves sav sbbetaoasdet svete svseateasnccuseesecccccesareueu 137

Davidson v. State,

453 S.W.3d 386 (Tenn. 2014) oo... ee eeessseeseccnsccenessceressecacessceeressatsseaserarsosenegernancorenssavesasees passim

Davis v. Washington,

547 U.S. 813 (2006)... ceesccsceecceceesceeeeeceecceeesecscceresnyeneereuscdsesenreaesceeseersacesees a 126, 128

Dean v. State,

59 S.W.3d 663 (Tenn. 2001).......ccccssssssccssestecsssersearsesessessesseesedsseesnaeceessevensecersesees 149, 157, 158

Deck v. Missouri,

544 ULS, 622 (2005) 0... seccsecseeeceeeeeneeeeceneenceeeeacessecesaevseeeaseaseaaseneessohanereetsteaneeaseneaseasesees 107, 108

Delk v. State,

590 S.W.2d 435 (Tenth. 1979)... ees ecceccescceeseeeeneeees Sgttsteetetites Srerererzs STSCSTNTTT TST Te eta. Fr Avs os 147

Doe v. Norris,

751 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. 1988)... eeeeeeeeceeseeeeeeeeeeas seavunacenes soneessses ten ee ee 172

Douglas v. California,

372 U.S. 353 (1963) .....sscenseaiasesaanuessaussesccsnasiestuacecepiteunsenssissuceaioaninsbsusiopbaneadavacciesbanezepssecaacaes 102

Dunn v. Blumstein,

405 U.S. 330 (1972) .....cesssesesesessseceneeeees ee ro gay STAG ToREA EGG SwATETT OC Ris Cpaee va TavaseuTseEeeceraaseye 173

Eddings v. Oklahoma,

A455 U.S. 104 (1982) ......:cssccecsssesenesenserenersenes jaeca NUD sallzeDaccansas OGG cSivTae pats feats 63, 75, 156, 168

Everett v. Beard,

290 F.3d 500 (3d Cir. 2002)...........:ccccsesesscentbaitaisnasatons avaacacssavanssbeasensecevececsessonsesscsseuscenevenanss 153

Eyitts v. Lucey,

A469 U.S. 387 (1985) uu... eseccececeeessesectenecsecseceasensraceeceacacecaecneseneacseceeeeseaaneensedereassseseasaoeeeae 43, 102

Falconer v. Lane,

905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir. 1990) oe eceseecrecseeeseesseenetens poasendtehetneees aduevsenaze SEO TO 149

Fields v. State,

40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001)....... eeeeesrseees stscenerseseese susstsasesneseatesstceseseceresseres Mevegerbensees 21, 53, 116

Ford v. Wainwright,

ATT U.S. 399 (1986) .......cescetceesesersevessertennecoes enn orev ErrrEn 172

Frazier v. Huffman,

343 F.3d 780 (6th Cir, 2003).....-.ccscccscccsseceseetseceopersessncseceesenscecevacesseareacetsensscessceserensesoanes (aterecens 68

Frazier v. United States,

335 U.S. 497 (1948) ne eeecesecceseesseeeeeneececsceseccenseusseacdcecsessseacessercnanenesnosdstsasceeucanssetnsseeess aerceeee 124

Freeman v. Class,

95 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 1996) ooo. ccc ecesecscseressenseceecesaeesseesseerssscaceseansesscsadnsscateenstenseanacnaasestss 153

Friedmann v. Correction Corporation of America,

310 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) 0... eeeeceeetereseceeeecectsetsneeees sdgeastsasnessPhdedtocsvsesccsecsenssees 42

Fuentes v. Shevin,

407 US. 67 (1972) wssscessees SaaneberenicTs OE ARE nh OEE a STEEP 98

Funk v. Scripps Media, Inc.,

570 S.W.3d 205 (Tenn, 2019)........ccssssescereecseecescestssesenceersscenesenesveesonaeeccueveeteetevsserecesraseceaeostes 37

Furman v. Georgia,

408 U.S. 238 (1972) .....cccsessccessecssssencsstcesconecceestsssseressscsenecnecssnessecseeetersepertsasoeseneseseesemmcseeseesee 177

xiii

020

Gardner v. Florida,

430 U.S. 349 (1977) ....sossccssersocece-s se scansenneoperengeanestesneesnerteessaswestsshinaiasntialey onsisaiavsisstasizents 97, 98

Garrett v. Estelle,

556 F.2d 1274 (Sth Cir. 1977) ....n.scczecse.es.ctesdsaseccecsensorre-sovvasasysesoussuzoas cuss stuessennasasousnessentnavers 36

Inve Gault,

387 U.S. 1 (1967) oe eeeeeeecestsseernteeeeneneoeneers poo ec Mecesheeetaetbenttecnsdessntnsdeosdacasthotiesee Ties 97

Georgia v. McCollum,

505 U.S. 42 (1992) .....cscesccsssssscssecetsonsecstsscecses poconssasaceresessented srs atenneseaessssccatsosacscesneateneasseeseoess 42

Giddens vy. State,

2008 WL 271967 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008)....0.......:.sceseseesessesseesrseeeecsessseeecseesessnseneeneneenenanenes 22

Gideon v. Wainwright,

372 U.S. 335 (1963) .....-0--necerscesneonenstesstunnyesemsaniaayasnsasn supjui chess uasuseuue ceastiiene bem nasseanedcesassbensers 102

Glenn v. Tate,

71 F.3d 1204 (6th Cir. 1996)..........ccssssesscorssssssrsssoterssorsscersesrsccessasscennecasssenssaseonranstnesnesorers 68, 101

Glossip v. Gross,

135 S.Ct. 2726 (2015) ........scccscsecassesssssscsishe sit ssceasonnspaagennqnsonsassqnuesyestehsnesnaysintanatssssssdianeyondensdd 176

Goad v. State,

938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996)..........:-ccorcscsssescossssssesedsabossddorsnasiosssdsviacosoncasicstsassnnsdnansssesteseenses 63

Goldberg v. Kelly,

397 15-12 547.977 0) ix- cae cymanonoeenenenseneceanieeneencer soar meteeenace ni ssoumnepensnenesnesenaseemmenesameensesccanenan 96, 97

Gonzalez v. United States,

553 U.S. 242 (2008) .........icsgavesaesisconiausyabisnsaiinanisabieasastesaneatieaxssennsnentiavevusetineeunsinastsess 110, 124, 174

Gray v. Mississippi,

481 U.S. 648 (1987) .....sccccscsscecsssearsncesosessneseneagonscsssscunenenssssnessassuosesetensenedecsscresersneneanenons 118, 120

Greer v. Mitchell,

264 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 2001),....ccsorenesssssssaccsoncassssdesecsadacewessostasencoasaubeostecasestonssdenibusestesdnodessices 86

Gregg v. Georgia,

428 U.S. 153 (1976) 0... ecceseseeeeessaerseee Feo oFe ns SSFET TT ase SETS wTvornesetecadysanessuecresserseronaee 63, 167, 173

Griffin v. Illinois,

351 U.S. 12 (1956) .2.-corossennsecesesennsenssconcesescconsnrersenssanenonsessensonsosgrsoreesssnsessosnreseiacasnsesscnsnsseeaseoss 102

Grigsby v. Mabry,

569 F. Supp. 1273 (ED. Ark. 1983) ..ccccessessscssssssssrsssessssseseacsseecsesssarssensnescecasseaensesaaeseecasanes 111

Hamblin v. Mitchell,

354 F230 482) (6th. Cit 2003) ......--.a-q-susnmsenmnasenaenmnenaneneenemnensameeneessserenmnmesemnservenroncatss 67, 101

Harries v. Bell,

417 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2005)................gansceiissspsnwsstssacasuccteasaseundautepadadadsssvessonseusesdsoeseseiaNentanecape 101

Harris By & Through Ramseyer v. Wood,

64 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1995).............. sss SST TST ESET RE SEES STES CT a0 SEETEOT COSTE TSgEOO US STEEUG NEES TENET ISOUETSUrsnseg 91

Harris v. Sharp,

941 F.3d 962 (10th Cir. 2019)... eecseesseneseeeseseesssonee Le. ee jaasansessaace Res 91

Higgins v. Reinco,

470 F.3d 632— (6th Cir, 2006). ....c..eseececsesescsscecesssecsecsesererseseeceeesneesnesseneersosnestsrassanneneeasaaeeees 132

Hinton v. Alabama,

571 U.S. 263 (2014) oo. eeeeeescessscecssseneresesersnesesssesvscseteessnsoareesseseeseneensenessnsassaceqesensey meaceaseeseseesetss 99

Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association,

452 US. 264 (1981). srerseorresieorecsupesnsisn si ont sais diceudicatstusejiesiusnssebacdhasteayhevadscedenedislasaepesntgutéonsversave 98

XIV

021

Holmes v. State,

2004 WL 2253991 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004)... cs cesesssscsssseesserseeeseeaneseenesessseenreneees 146, 156

Horton v. Flenory,

889 F.2d 454 (3d Cir, 1989)... eesetseneeesannnere sa Sapa sye cwanagena wi oveetia tweet east see yaaa rots seenurocdantets 42

Howell v. State,

151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004) eee eeccenssceesenersesssseasousens aececerseeseesee ee eseeeeeswesseveceeeeses MeN 102

Hughes v. United States,

258 F.3d 453 (6th Cir.2001)..... ce seasesreneeee RSET TRE Spores. d3reae.Seeses jot cereseesapeniestes 124

Hurst v. Florida,

577 ULS. 92 (2016) 2c ceecceecaeseeneseneeecetneoeneseons sawussobanvessstdavewveaes sueddehivensaveadsbewenexaussatcs 154, 170

In re Oliver,

333 U.S. 257 (1948)... 8 es es 97

In re Ross,

866 A.2d 554 (Comm. 2005)... cececcececesssneeesoroasseanasacnaceaaneccusrsenesoate hrcmareeneariemeeseeaamersrnas its 36

Inve Winship,

BOT U.S. 358 (1970)... cccsssscceccccsececeartenseseeceesesssescsceasensassuseecunssecedsseaeeseeesensarsesensenseatsneeeaeanes 158

Irvin v. Dowd,

366 U.S. 717 (1961)..........scscecescnneesdehaasdiaasentionecetesdecntaeisiecbasivevestieyi jnataasscaciacsesssunccssussaseuites 115

Jackson v. Leonardo,

162. F3d. 81 (2d Cir. 1998)............:-.ccamanucoansenssanetsvensronnensonenensnasstynemenss suenponenenansnvntneensenseosrys 138

Jells y. Mitchell,

538 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2008)... cc cssecseseccesecesecteoeseeseecsessenecsacsessascseaseasesacsacsaeessssecneeesenseeesses 67

Jenkins v. State,

509 S.W.2d 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1974)... ecsccesesssscsescescsasaccnnsaseneaerensonsseseecerensestssesaners 141

Johnson v. State,

2006 WL 721300 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006) = jesaneeecectensertecsecsecseeess 146, 156

Johnson v. Zerbst,

304 U.S. 458 (1938) wscssssccsssscssssssscssseascsesscccessareraftbailsassivssaddseseecssvesdetessecsveacsacereres 110, 124, 174

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath,

341 ULS. 123 (1951) ..eceeeeeeeseees eeposeSbaSEb odes secs dSocsBoe soles Madd sETSsc0evtdascaSbececOMeTePeenseFiasesesoe aeeeeer OY

Jones v. State,

2007 WL 1174899 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).........sccssssees Fe aA TR TRRES TESST OST STATUTES wonststerseaael L

Jones v. U.S.,

526 U.S. 227 (1999) sccecsvssseecescssscenteesataesgrstssestenastenseeesorsstones ass ederrsaysvereusisates ofeveeeneescecewseersrss! 178

Kenley v. Armontrout,

937 F.2d 1298 (8th Cir, 1991)... eeescsseeteeeesseneresenensesaes SS, as aeeeseees wee 89

Knight v. State,

229 S.W.2d 501 (Tenn. 1950) 0.0... eeceecececesenceecenennsce sescecceneaecsssenssnssansatonsaesessaascoransnaspuadezseuaes 14]

Kubat v. Thieret,

867 F.2d 351 (7th Cir.1989)...... ceccesessssesetsesssecesees arlcthNet. «tones Sus Teeeese Tes esees deneseoran Quest + 63, 76

Lankford v. Idaho,

500 U.S. 110 (1991) wee cesseccsceresedecescecsenecssceacetertaseneeseeesedesensecsssussesecuntsasesessensenssseesensenee 97, 98

Lassiter v. State,

180 So.2d (Fla. App. 2016)........-esecceesseees sac saueapeeEvaurantaya waste qeaverseuresleesazsatena teases svar Aoersseetta ts 34

Lindstadt v. Keane,

239 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001)... cscesccsesensteesserseeseeasassseenscssees ee ee ny re 76, 140

XV

022

Lockett v. Ohio,

A38 U.S. 586 (1978) ...ceccsccssscssccesccassnscneesscsatsceseeecssnecsssecsesecsseesusessaceatenesascnsnuserecesee seers anes 63, 168

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.,

455 U.S. 422 (1982) ...eecceescseene ee eebedsevecsscecssesescesscesueeseaesessnenerserssaencasencatenseccedecesereeass 98

Long v. Board of Professional Responsibility,

435 S.W.3d 174 (Tenn. 2014) ..eecccccsecessseee sesseceecacseesessoassceneassusscansonsnasspanensnenenseacstesessacnengeae# 93

Lugar vy. Edmondson Oil Co.,

A57 U.S. 922 (1982) .......-ceoececscoresenrsebtsioovevevorsensscoeasnescsarsorsuorergeaseeesaseiarssieersossesressertacesoeare 41, 44

Mak v. Blodgett,

970 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1992)... scsessssssessesnesecssssnersrscsasenssssssessaeneesasensesseqssteceeresereseesanens 156

Malone v. State,

2017 WL 1404374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017)... ccccsssesseenssnesessetensesceneseraseerennsnaressenaenees 49,51

Martin v. Grosshans,

424 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2005)........:0.s:sessscreconsonsassassecsessenserssoneeseasersgvonsocveenecsossensarseasensseqengeee 137

Mathews v. Eldridge,

424 U.S. 319 (1976) ..ccccscssesccsseerssessassssscssccssnesseensseeneneneeee ere ee sepecaseseseaceesreagerreees 90, 102

Mazzan vy. State,

675 P.2d 409 (Nev. 1984) 0... eeeneceee aWwisynavervaaaes¥Vesa ee atseraceetreneeetevees 139

McCleskey v. Kemp,

481 U.S. 279 (1987) on. eeeeseeeceeeeee re en 62

McCormick v. State,

1999 WL 394935 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999)... cesses asa Gadus S7aabaaesgeTwapvenaebiveas Dut onstascancseaes 55

McCulley v. State,

53 S.W. 134 (Tem. 1899) .....cccsesccsessesenssseseseessecssessssssssececsssesseesecetensetecesnseseasenansnsensnnsennenaees 94

McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood,

464 US. 548 (1994) .eesccceececsessssssssensenscssneacenssnessseesecsettecsersentes aTeTeETTET Bands oseTSeTTsaoxeee 115, 119

McFarland v. Yukins,

356 F.3d 688 (6th Cir.2004)..............cnvessnnesansesesconsonsnssnseausoonnerenensssosnenpeensensnngnensnesserennens 156, 158

McKinney v. State,

2010 WL 796939 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).....cscsccsssssessecsrsnsessesesesseescesesseeresressenserses 90, 91, 179

McKoy v. North Carelina,

ADA U.S. 433 (1990) .........cc-cscecencesssnsidadisncauansiaieasoavnsseassionshasbatandeneusheneesecensonsininanteonsonestionnzeveene 177

McWilliams v. Dunn,

137 S.Ct. 1790 (2017)....... De TERE Pi ir ere ee 99, 102

Melendez—Diaz v. Massachusetts,

557 U.S. 305 (2009)... .eccceescsentssseseasnsassessensenseseranes pacers. sivevegas. MorewcasstpatrTia sesteaster> axdreevaat 126

Michigan v. Mosley,

423 U.S. 96 (1975) ou. ceesseeeceesesectecceeusecesnsseeensereees dapsteesedbooccsrencavessrsqypnacestTeereneanesThsTETEarscesnacetede 38

Miller v. Webb,

385 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2004)... cc ccesecscsrsscesesensteneeseees Pe ee ae TyeaeaadtcaveasTatige cae TeasaaTiers 122

Mills v. Maryland,

486 U.S. 367 (1988).........4.. She SET oe oTVao F7CaRES TUS TEFTONTTESTOVTASY saageeTaaNEpansvinewITES ee sesssarcvsee 177

Mills v. Wong,

155 $.W.3d 916 (Tenn. 2005)........... sedis cuspusoecSucecatesutsaneie sn sTeees Stage nsndtensersseesT=oana sassaesrecatencesees LOZ

Miranda v. Arizona,

384 U.S. 436 (1966)... SE es Sea oT oe ae See TT esas cee swans ea Fasassee Toe ATE TTTTEETS 43

xvi

023

Mobley v. State,

397 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. 2013) scssssesssorssicusassavssnssoxensvaesuauscevsvenniennaaeoraguntacicennses ses 107, 108, 109, 110

Morgan v. Illinois,

504 U.S. 719 (1992) ...cecscscsecessescenesessscessccessessesessesesssnesuansessaeecesseesesseeesseeaneasensaseas 115, 121, 124

Mu’min v. Virginia,

500 U.S. 415 (1991) wo. esccscsceseeeecsscsnessessrsvensssseassnneers POET. 0 FSTTETY SSNS T TE RSE RST RES SEES EEOSERUSSISSIESSTS 115

Nance v. State,

2006 WL 1575110 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006)........ccscscsssssssescrsseereetierersneenennsstensnsnssensaens passim

Neder v. United States,

527 U.S. 1 (1999) ...cccccccccecscectssececersscessesesssssnssesssssssserasduensetsseresenecssseaessseasaceranennssstereettecssnetes 124

Nero v. Blackburn,

597 F.2d 991 (Sth Cir. 1979)... ccccscscccscsessesersssnsscecerssesstecesssserseanets es cesssdescensesaenacoceseneeeenseenss 153

New Jersey v. Henderson,

27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011)........... Le ee es goa 152

Nuckols v. Gibson,

233 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2000)..............+rtssssoissacanacsissesasseseacesesssesnasesaretenerssoceessooeee 40, 42, 43

Olim v. Wakinkona,

461 U.S. 238 (1983) occ escsesnneeesees yet thats Ne errr oe eer ee i 178

Osborn v. Shillinger,

861 F.2d 612 (10th Cir. 1988).......... Besse. carr saa sieeSt oes ygcecnypeaes EeeeggseT aoe ssaedbiearTeessdwdensversessores 139

Owens v. State,

908 S.W.2d 923 (Tenn. 1995).......... puansarasaenaautanespesson arusrepoep Tt dcgreseeoeasensTip ssssaseees 92, 93, 100, 103

Parratt v. Taylor,

A451 U.S. 527 (1981) ......scccseccrersscecsscscesonssassonsssesssacsensseeseasauenatvanacacessncensareacncenenagueresscesaneanseestes 98

Patton v. Yount,

AGT U.S. 1025... eeseseescerceecseeesnssesoransnsseersecsees ee suuanousteausassdecesDerBTEdtedfeseotdatnacgsetyfenettee 115

Payne v. Arkansas,

356 U.S. 560 (1958) vo... eessecececenseccereseessssaresseseeneses aE TR RECT 26

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado,

137 S.Ct. 855 (2017) -..eceecsseseesssnesnensnerenateees autenduaamsaneacTouraas TWanosasbaceaeaucvessoeanteepenes 162, 165, 166

Penry v. Lynaugh,

AO2 U.S. 302 (1989) ..cerscsssesseseicrsctossnsitessniocerssesescasesiescedecssceteessesenanrededetssescnaten senses eee 66, 77

People v. Armstrong,

433 P.3d 987 (Cal. 2019) .....eeecesssesssssssssesccerssssesesesssenesnsesesteneesesarenees ss geveggraggec awiacenensaseaaaes 174

People v. Dunlap,

975 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1999) .....eeccecsssessersecssrensssseersetssensssesssesecessntensers eeeeeeareee Re cor 36

People v. Hardy,

418 P.3d 309 (Cal. 2018) 0... sccccssesscecscceesorssscessessseesegesccsessestsecerasseraseessnensensasensanserenesteaneey 174

People v. LeGrand,

867 N.E.2d 374 (NY. 2007) ......eccsossessecssecereneeaes RR ee ee ee ee 152

Phon v. Commonwealth,

51 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. App. 2001) wc... ccseescsscssrssssserecssnssssseseessssreusasepneesasenanensanensesassssesenesnssese 174

Pierce v. Tharp,

461 S.W.2d 950 (Tenn. 1970) 0.0... eessrcenessensaes ST STS ESTES CTSTTNTG Ts =o Tae caT UT TESTETOET Tvs TESTI STERTES ETT 95

Plyler v. Doe,

A5T US, 202 (1982) oo. .ecsssssessetcseesserecscsssceessenscereeses ssaaves Teach tPery 1.2 reshaciiparTaseTFViedtoneee pertvecee 172

XVii

024

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-171]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]