{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-11986-2026-09-14", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-11986-2026-09-14)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-08", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:711432", "proof": "sha256:d9fd5cebe095efd06fb8eea6b2939210ed0de518535ba358099dc99966afe4ec", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca11-24-11986-2026-09-14", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531", "para_532", "para_533", "para_534", "para_535", "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572", "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604", "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612", "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617", "para_618", "para_619", "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658", "para_659", "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668", "para_669", "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673", "para_674", "para_675", "para_676", "para_677", "para_678", "para_679", "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688", "para_689", "para_690", "para_691", "para_692", "para_693", "para_694", "para_695", "para_696", "para_697", "para_698", "para_699", "para_700", "para_701", "para_702", "para_703", "para_704", "para_705", "para_706", "para_707", "para_708", "para_709", "para_710", "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716", "para_717", "para_718", "para_719", "para_720", "para_721", "para_722", "para_723", "para_724", "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728", "para_729", "para_730", "para_731", "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738", "para_739", "para_740", "para_741", "para_742", "para_743", "para_744", "para_745", "para_746", "para_747", "para_748", "para_749", "para_750", "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757", "para_758", "para_759", "para_760", "para_761", "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768", "para_769", "para_770", "para_771", "para_772", "para_773", "para_774", "para_775", "para_776", "para_777", "para_778", "para_779", "para_780", "para_781", "para_782", "para_783", "para_784", "para_785", "para_786", "para_787", "para_788", "para_789", "para_790", "para_791", "para_792", "para_793", "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801", "para_802", "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812", "para_813", "para_814", "para_815", "para_816", "para_817", "para_818", "para_819", "para_820", "para_821", "para_822", "para_823", "para_824", "para_825", "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830", "para_831", "para_832", "para_833", "para_834", "para_835", "para_836", "para_837", "para_838", "para_839", "para_840", "para_841", "para_842", "para_843", "para_844", "para_845", "para_846", "para_847", "para_848", "para_849", "para_850", "para_851", "para_852", "para_853", "para_854", "para_855", "para_856", "para_857", "para_858", "para_859", "para_860", "para_861", "para_862", "para_863", "para_864", "para_865", "para_866", "para_867", "para_868", "para_869", "para_870", "para_871", "para_872", "para_873", "para_874", "para_875", "para_876", "para_877", "para_878", "para_879", "para_880", "para_881", "para_882", "para_883", "para_884", "para_885", "para_886", "para_887", "para_888", "para_889", "para_890", "para_891", "para_892", "para_893", "para_894", "para_895", "para_896", "para_897", "para_898", "para_899", "para_900", "para_901", "para_902", "para_903", "para_904", "para_905", "para_906", "para_907", "para_908", "para_909", "para_910", "para_911", "para_912", "para_913", "para_914", "para_915", "para_916", "para_917", "para_918", "para_919", "para_920", "para_921", "para_922", "para_923", "para_924", "para_925", "para_926", "para_927", "para_928", "para_929", "para_930", "para_931", "para_932", "para_933", "para_934", "para_935", "para_936", "para_937", "para_938", "para_939", "para_940", "para_941", "para_942", "para_943", "para_944", "para_945", "para_946", "para_947", "para_948", "para_949", "para_950", "para_951", "para_952", "para_953", "para_954", "para_955", "para_956", "para_957", "para_958", "para_959", "para_960", "para_961", "para_962", "para_963", "para_964", "para_965", "para_966", "para_967", "para_968", "para_969", "para_970", "para_971", "para_972", "para_973", "para_974", "para_975", "para_976", "para_977", "para_978", "para_979", "para_980", "para_981", "para_982", "para_983", "para_984", "para_985", "para_986", "para_987", "para_988", "para_989", "para_990", "para_991", "para_992", "para_993", "para_994", "para_995", "para_996", "para_997", "para_998", "para_999", "para_1000", "para_1001", "para_1002", "para_1003", "para_1004", "para_1005", "para_1006", "para_1007", "para_1008", "para_1009", "para_1010", "para_1011", "para_1012", "para_1013", "para_1014", "para_1015", "para_1016", "para_1017", "para_1018", "para_1019", "para_1020", "para_1021", "para_1022", "para_1023", "para_1024", "para_1025", "para_1026", "para_1027", "para_1028", "para_1029", "para_1030", "para_1031", "para_1032", "para_1033", "para_1034", "para_1035", "para_1036", "para_1037", "para_1038", "para_1039", "para_1040", "para_1041", "para_1042", "para_1043", "para_1044", "para_1045", "para_1046", "para_1047", "para_1048", "para_1049", "para_1050", "para_1051", "para_1052", "para_1053", "para_1054", "para_1055", "para_1056", "para_1057", "para_1058", "para_1059", "para_1060", "para_1061", "para_1062", "para_1063", "para_1064", "para_1065", "para_1066", "para_1067", "para_1068", "para_1069", "para_1070", "para_1071", "para_1072", "para_1073", "para_1074", "para_1075", "para_1076", "para_1077", "para_1078", "para_1079", "para_1080", "para_1081", "para_1082", "para_1083", "para_1084", "para_1085", "para_1086", "para_1087", "para_1088", "para_1089", "para_1090", "para_1091", "para_1092", "para_1093", "para_1094", "para_1095" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "In the", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "For the Eleventh Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "No. 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "GEORGE MARTIN,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Petitioner-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "versus", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "CORRECTIONS,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Respondent-Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "for the Southern District of Alabama", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00460-TFM-MU", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 1 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "2 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "KIDD, Circuit Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "The State of Alabama committed prosecutorial misconduct", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "in the first trial of George Martin, a former Alabama State Trooper", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "who was accused of killing his wife for pecuniary gain. Because of", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "this misconduct, the state had to try Martin a second time. But at", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "the second trial, the trial judge precluded Martin from raising cer-", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "tain issues concerning the prosecutorial misconduct in the first", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "trial. Martin has now filed a federal habeas corpus petition to chal-", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "lenge his conviction from the second trial. The district court denied", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Martin’s petition, and he has now appealed the denial to us.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "On appeal, Martin claims that the state trial court’s preclu-", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "sion order violated the rights guaranteed to him by the Constitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "tion’s Confrontation Clause and prevented him from presenting a", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "complete defense. He also argues that the state presented insuffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "cient evidence for the jury to find that he murdered his wife for", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "pecuniary gain, which was the aggravating factor necessary to im-", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "pose the sentence of life without parole.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Alabama’s misconduct in Martin’s case was egregious, and", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "the state courts found as much. But our habeas corpus review is", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "limited by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Those limitations constrain us to", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "I. BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "Because this habeas case arises from a lengthy and complex", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "procedural history spanning two trials almost two decades apart,", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "our discussion of that history is divided into five parts. First, we", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 2 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 3", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "discuss the evidence presented during Martin’s first trial and the di-", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "rect appeal of his first conviction. Second, we discuss the collateral", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "proceedings that revealed the state committed prosecutorial mis-", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "conduct before Martin’s trial, which led the trial court to grant Mar-", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "tin a second trial. Third, we discuss the direct appeal proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "that led to Martin being granted a second trial. Fourth, we discuss", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "the preclusion order entered and the murder-for-pecuniary-gain ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "idence presented during Martin’s second trial, as well as the direct", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "appeal of his second conviction. Finally, we discuss the facts regard-", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "ing the federal habeas proceedings below.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "A. First Trial and Direct Appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "On October 8, 1995, around 11:30 p.m., law enforcement", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "and emergency responders discovered a black 1991 Ford Escort", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "that had collided with a tree and was on fire on the side of a road", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "in Tillman’s Corner, Alabama. Inside the vehicle was the body of", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "Hammoleketh Martin, George Martin’s wife.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "At the time of his wife’s death, Martin was an Alabama State", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "Trooper. The Mobile County District Attorney’s Office investi-", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "gated Martin for his wife’s death but ultimately decided not to pros-", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "ecute him after failing to obtain a grand jury indictment. Alabama", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "Attorney General’s Office then initiated another investigation and,", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "four years later, obtained a grand jury indictment.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "In June 1999, Martin was indicted and charged with capital", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "murder done for a pecuniary or other valuable consideration, in", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "violation of Alabama Code § 13A-5-40(a)(7). The state’s initial the-", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "ory was that Martin deliberately set his wife’s car on fire and staged", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 3 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "4 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "the scene to appear as if a traffic collision had caused the fire. The", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "state further theorized that Martin’s motive for killing his wife was", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "for financial gain—life insurance money. Martin maintained he did", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "not kill his wife. He told investigators that his wife’s gas gauge did", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "not work and she kept a red gas can in the back seat of her car.", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "The state’s case was circumstantial. The state primarily re-", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "lied upon a witness, James Taylor, who testified that two hours be-", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "fore Hammoleketh was discovered, he saw an African American", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "trooper in uniform in his work vehicle parked near where she was", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "found. During closing statements, the state argued the jury should", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "conclude that (1) Martin, who is African American, fled the crime", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "scene on a bicycle he planted there earlier; (2) other than Martin’s", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "relatives, no one had ever seen a gas can in his wife’s vehicle; and", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "(3) based on Taylor’s testimony, they should infer that Martin was", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "the trooper Taylor had seen.", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "We recount portions of the state appellate court’s review of", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "the trial evidence to provide context for the years of proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "that followed, leading to this appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "A traffic homicide investigator from the Alabama De-", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "partment of Public Safety testified that he examined", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "the vehicle and the scene in question. He conducted", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "speed calculations of a vehicle and analyzed the kind", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "of force that would have been necessary to cause such", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "a fire. He concluded that the fire was not an accident", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "and the collision of the vehicle with a tree did not pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "duce sufficient force to start the fire.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": ". . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 4 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 5", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "The state also introduced evidence of a traffic acci-", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "dent investigation report prepared by Martin approx-", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "imately one year prior to the death of his wife. The", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "report involved a traffic accident in which an automo-", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "bile left the road, hit a tree, and burst into flames.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "Martin v. State, 931 So. 2d 736, 740–41 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (cita-", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "tion modified), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Ex parte Martin v.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "State, 931 So. 2d 736 (Ala. 2004), aff’d on remand, 931 So. 2d 774 (Ala.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "Crim. App. 2005). The state maintained that Martin staged the ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "cident to look like the prior accident he investigated. See id. at 741.", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "The state also attacked Martin’s credibility. The prosecution", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "argued that Martin was untruthful about whether Hammoleketh", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "carried a gasoline can. See id. at 740. The state further argued that", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "Martin was untruthful about the number of life insurance policies", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "Hammoleketh had. Id. Though Martin acknowledged the exist-", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "ence of a $200,000 policy, the state maintained he lied when he", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "stated there were no other policies. Id. The state introduced evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "dence to support that there was another $150,000 policy that was", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "collectible only if Hammoleketh died in a passenger vehicle. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "740–41. The state connected Martin’s purported need to collect the", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "insurance proceeds by eliciting testimony that his financial condi-", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "tion had worsened to near bankruptcy. Id. at 741.", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "In May 2000, the jury convicted Martin of capital murder for", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "pecuniary gain. Despite the jury’s recommendation by a vote of 8–", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "4 that he be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "of parole, the trial court judge overrode the jury’s recommenda-", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 5 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "6 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "tion and sentenced Martin to death. The Alabama Court of Crimi-", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "nal Appeals (“ACCA”) affirmed Martin’s conviction and sentence,", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "and Martin appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama (“ASC”).", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "The ASC affirmed Martin’s conviction but reversed the trial court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "ruling that overrode the jury’s life-imprisonment recommenda-", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "tion. The ASC then remanded the case to the ACCA with instruc-", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "tions to remand it to the trial court to reconsider its ruling based", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "on new precedent. The trial court did so and resentenced Martin", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "to death, and the ACCA upheld that ruling on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "B. Postconviction Proceedings and Brady Violations", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "In 2006, Martin filed a petition for postconviction relief pur-", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "suant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. Specifically, Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "32.1 permits a petitioner convicted of a criminal offense, and who", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "has exhausted the direct appeals, to file a petition to seek relief on", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "certain enumerated grounds in the court of original conviction.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1, 32.2(a)(1). Two of those grounds are at issue", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "here: (1) if the state or federal constitution requires a new trial, and", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "(2) newly discovered material facts exist that require the court to", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "vacate the conviction or sentence. Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a), (e). Prior", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "to Martin’s trial, the judge entered an open file discovery order.", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "During the course of that proceeding, Martin discovered that the", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "state failed to disclose several pieces of material evidence that were", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "favorable to his defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 6 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 7", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "83 (1963).", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "From 2006 until 2011, Martin litigated for access to the", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "state’s file. In 2009, the trial court ordered the state to provide Mar-", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "tin with all documents in its file. The ACCA and then the ASC de-", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "nied the state’s petitions for a writ of mandamus challenging the", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "court’s order. Then, in 2011, the trial court conducted an in camera", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "inspection of the state’s file and ordered the state to produce all", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "materials except those it deemed privileged.", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "In 2012, the court held a fifteen-day evidentiary hearing that", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "included testimony from 28 witnesses and the introduction of 104", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "exhibits. After the hearing, the court concluded that the prosecu-", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "tion had failed to disclose four pieces of evidence that were favora-", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "ble to Martin’s defense in violation of Brady. We discuss each before", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "turning to the proceedings that followed the court granting Mar-", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "tin’s petition for a new trial based on those violations.", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "1. Taylor Implicated Another Suspect", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "During the trial, the prosecution never asked Taylor to iden-", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "tify Martin as the trooper he saw, and there was no evidence pre-", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "sented concerning the size of the trooper Taylor saw. After receiv-", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "ing the state’s file, Martin discovered for the first time that Major", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "Thomas Calhoun of the Mobile Police Department interviewed", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "Taylor twice, in April and May 1997, and Taylor provided Calhoun", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "with evidence that was favorable to Martin’s defense. At the Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "32 hearing, Calhoun testified he was responsible for deciding what", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "materials would be turned over to Martin’s defense. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "found most of Calhoun’s testimony about his discovery-handling", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 7 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "8 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "practices not credible.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "During the April 1997 interview, Calhoun wrote in his notes", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "that Taylor told him the trooper he saw was a “large black man.”", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "For trial, he typed a summary of this interview. A portion of the", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "summary was read to the jury, but the summary was never marked", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "for identification or introduced as an exhibit. Critically, the sum-", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "mary omitted Taylor’s statement regarding the size of the trooper", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "he saw. And Calhoun’s original notes from the interview were", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "never turned over to the defense or used by the state at trial. Based", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "on its observations, the court determined Martin “[was] not a large", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "man” because he was five feet, six inches tall.", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "During his May 1997 interview, Taylor was shown a photo-", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "graphic array containing thirteen African American troopers, in-", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "cluding Martin. Taylor identified another trooper, Grayling Wil-", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "liams, as the one he had seen the night of the murder. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "credited Martin’s defense counsel’s testimony that the state never", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "turned over Taylor’s identification of Williams. Additionally, Cal-", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "houn wrote in his notes that Taylor similarly relayed that the", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "trooper he saw was a “big man that filled up the car.” The state did", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "not dispute that this note was never turned over to the defense.", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "The court observed that Williams seemed to match Taylor’s de-", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "scriptions because he was five feet, eleven inches tall and weighed", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "198 pounds in 1995.", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "Without Taylor’s testimony, the state had no witness or", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "other evidence to place Martin at the scene. Notably, Calhoun was", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "present in court during Martin’s trial when the state argued that", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 8 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 9", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "the jury could infer from Taylor’s testimony that Martin was the", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "man Taylor saw at the scene.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "2. Anonymous Calls Implicating Other Suspects", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "The state also withheld two anonymous calls implicating", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "other suspects. The first call was placed to the Alabama Depart-", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "ment of Public Safety in October 1995. The caller indicated that", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "Hammoleketh was “running around with two white troopers” in a", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "nearby county when Martin was at work. The second call was", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "placed to the Mobile Police Department in November 1995. Nota-", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "bly, the caller indicated that Williams was involved in Hammole-", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "keth’s death. At the Rule 32 hearing, the court credited Martin’s", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "defense counsel’s testimony that he never received information", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "about these calls.", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "3. Norma Broach Implicated Another Suspect", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "At the hearing, Norma Broach testified that she was at a", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "nearby gas station on the night of Hammoleketh’s death. Broach", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "said that she saw a “white camper truck” and a small black car that", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "matched the description of Hammoleketh’s vehicle parked along", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "the highway not far from where Hammoleketh was found. Accord-", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "ing to Broach, a white man drove the truck to the gas station, went", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "inside the station, filled up two gas cans, and then drove back and", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "parked next to the black car. She then saw the man drag and push", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "“a heavy object” into the passenger side of the truck cab before he", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "sped off toward the area where Hammoleketh was found.", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "The next day, when Broach saw on the news that a woman’s", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "body had been found in a burned-out car near the gas station, she", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 9 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "10 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "called the Crimestoppers hotline to relay what she had seen the day", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "prior. Broach reported what she had seen to two Mobile Police De-", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "partment investigators, and also to Williams. Otherwise, law en-", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "forcement did not contact her. Broach was not a witness at Martin’s", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "trial. She continued contacting law enforcement for years about", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "what she had witnessed.", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "The officers who testified at the hearing were uncertain", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "about when they learned of Broach. But a handwritten note from", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "another officer dated October 22, 1995, was admitted as an exhibit,", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "which stated that Broach was at the gas station one hour before", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "Hammoleketh was found and saw a man enter and buy gas. The", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "court determined a jury could find Broach’s testimony credible.", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "And it was undisputed at the hearing that Broach’s identity, her", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "statements, and the October 22, 1995, note were never turned over", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "to Martin’s defense counsel.", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "4. Gas Can Evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "During the trial, the prosecution told the jury that Martin", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "was not credible when he told officers that his wife carried a gas", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "can in her car because (1) only Martin’s relatives and none of his", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "wife’s friends saw her carry a gas can, and (2) the arson investiga-", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "tors did not find remnants of a gas can at the scene.", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "In May 1997, Calhoun interviewed Hammoleketh’s sister,", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "Terri Jean Jackson. His handwritten notes from the interview re-", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "flected that Jackson stated she saw “a small red plastic gas can” in", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "her sister’s car before the incident. The court determined that the", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 10 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 11", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "state never provided this evidence to the defense and thus violated", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "Brady.", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "During Martin’s trial, several firefighters testified that no", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "remnants of a gas can were found. At the Rule 32 hearing, Martin", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "presented evidence that several officers had seen or were aware that", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "remnants of what appeared to be a plastic gas can were recovered", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "from Hammoleketh’s car. Although the court did not find that the", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "state committed a Brady violation, it noted that the state does not", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "contest this information was never disclosed to the defense.", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "C. Martin’s Indictment Dismissed with Prejudice", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "In 2013, the court granted Martin’s Rule 32 petition and", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "ruled that Martin was entitled to a new trial based on the Brady", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "violations. In 2014, the ACCA affirmed the decision, and the ASC", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "denied review on April 17, 2015. On May 7, 2015, the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "granted Martin’s motion for release pending his new trial.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "By the time Martin was released, he had been on death row", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "for fifteen years. Martin then moved to dismiss his capital murder", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "indictment with prejudice pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "Procedure 16.5. In 2016, the court granted the motion as a sanction", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "after determining that the state’s prosecutorial misconduct was", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "willful and that a new trial would not cure any resulting prejudice", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "to Martin.", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "The court found the state’s misconduct to be willful because", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "Calhoun, aware of Taylor’s prior identification of Williams and de-", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "scription of the trooper, remained silent while prosecutors argued", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "the jury should infer Martin was the trooper Taylor saw. Calhoun", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 11 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "12 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "further sat silent when prosecutors argued there was no evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "of the gas can, even though the officer knew that was untrue be-", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "cause Hammoleketh’s sister stated she saw a gas can. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "found that Martin was prejudiced because it had been sixteen years", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "since the trial, twenty years since the event, and many witnesses", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "were deceased or no longer remembered key details. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "also found prejudice because Taylor no longer recalled his previous", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "statements about the other suspect’s size during the Rule 32 hear-", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "ing.", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "The ACCA upheld the dismissal of an indictment as a sanc-", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "tion for prosecutorial misconduct. State v. Martin, 287 So. 3d 355", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "(Ala. Crim. App. 2017), rev’d sub nom., Ex parte State v. Martin, 287", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "So. 3d 384 (Ala. 2018). But the ASC reversed and remanded the case", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "to the trial court for a new trial. Martin, 287 So. 3d at 399. The ASC", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "held that neither the death of two unnamed witnesses nor Taylor’s", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "loss of memory established irreparable prejudice to warrant dismis-", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "sal. Id. at 397–99. According to the ASC, Taylor was available to", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "testify, and Martin now had his prior statements with which to im-", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "peach him if necessary. Id. at 398.", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "D. Second Trial and Direct Appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "The judge who presided over the Rule 32 proceedings and", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "dismissed the indictment retired, and a new judge presided over the", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "second trial.", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 12 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 13", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "1. Preclusion Order", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Before trial began, the state filed a motion in limine to ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "clude any mention of prosecutorial misconduct, discovery viola-", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "tions, or withholding of evidence from questions, inferences, nota-", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "tions, observations, statements, or communications by the defense.", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "Additionally, the state moved to exclude the trial court’s rulings re-", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "garding certain witnesses’ credibility. The state maintained that if", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "the trial court permitted the jury to hear about any of its miscon-", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "duct, it would create “an undue prejudice to which the [s]tate could", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "not reasonably surmount.”", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "Martin filed a motion in limine to prevent the exclusion of", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "such evidence. Martin maintained that evidence of the state’s mis-", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "conduct should not be excluded for several reasons. First, it was", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "centrally relevant to Martin’s defense that he was innocent and on", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "trial a second time nineteen years later because the state’s case was", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "weak and skewed by a flawed investigation, bias, and non-credible", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "initial investigators as evidenced by the numerous Brady violations.", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "Second, he had a Sixth Amendment right to confront the state’s", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "witnesses on these topics. Third, the state should be sanctioned for", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "its misconduct; specifically, Martin argued he would be unable to", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "put on a complete defense because they could not pursue all of the", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "previously buried leads twenty years after Hammoleketh’s death.", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "Fourth, without the ability to introduce evidence of the state’s mis-", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "conduct, the jury would receive a one-sided presentation of the ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "idence that Martin would not be able to overcome.", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 13 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "14 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "After holding a hearing on the motions, the trial court en-", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "tered a one-page order granting the state’s motion and denying", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "Martin’s. Specifically, the trial court determined “it would be con-", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "fusing and overly prejudicial to allow [Martin] to attempt to explain", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "the long and complicated procedural history of this case to the jury,", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "and that most, if not all, of this material [wa]s not relevant. For the", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "same reasons, [Martin’s] request for preclusion sanctions, adverse", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "inferences, and jury instructions would be unduly prejudicial.”", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "The day after the court entered the preclusion order, it", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "noted in a telephonic hearing in response to Martin’s motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "clarification that it expected Martin’s defense to get into the state’s", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "failure to pursue leads, alternative theories, alternative suspects,", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "and the state’s allegedly biased conduct. However, the court cau-", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "tioned the defense that these matters could not be introduced", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "through any evidence, cross-examination, or argument concerning", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "the prior trial, the Rule 32 proceedings, the proceedings on the mo-", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "tion for a new trial, or the motion to dismiss the indictment.", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "The court emphasized that, despite its best efforts, it could", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "not fashion a jury instruction or a remedy to explain the state’s mis-", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "conduct in the original trial, and doing so would cause confusion", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "and amount to a trial within a trial if the door were opened to ad-", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "dress any of the state’s misconduct.", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 14 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 15", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "2. Evidence Presented During Second Trial", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "Taylor, Broach, Williams, and Jackson all testified at the sec-", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "ond trial.", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "During the first trial, one of the arguments the state made to", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "prove that Martin killed his wife for pecuniary gain was that he did", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "not disclose to investigators all the life insurance policies that cov-", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "ered his wife. Specifically, the state maintained that Martin did not", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "disclose a $150,000 policy that was payable only if Hammoleketh", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "died in a passenger vehicle. In its case-in-chief, the state introduced", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "a copy of the policy into evidence through an insurance company", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "witness.", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "During the second trial, the state never admitted a copy of", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "the policy into evidence. And the state withdrew its only witness", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "to prove murder for pecuniary gain and instead maintained at side-", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "bar that “[t]he mere existence of an insurance policy is the only", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "thing that is [relevant] to the [s]tate’s case in chief[.]” The state bore", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "the burden to prove pecuniary gain; nevertheless, in Martin’s case-", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "in-chief, he presented testimony from an accounting expert and life", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "insurance expert to rebut that he murdered his wife for pecuniary", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "gain. They testified that Martin was in good financial health and", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "the amount of life insurance policies Hammoleketh had were nor-", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "mal and did not raise any red flags. But this opened Martin’s wit-", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "nesses to cross-examination by the state, which attacked those con-", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "clusions.", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "On June 7, 2019, the second jury found Martin guilty of cap-", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "ital murder for pecuniary gain, and the court sentenced him to life", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 15 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "16 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court de-", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "nied Martin’s request for a new trial or judgment of acquittal. Mar-", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "tin appealed his second conviction to the ACCA. As relevant to this", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "appeal, Martin maintained that the trial court’s preclusion order vi-", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "olated his Confrontation Clause rights and precluded him from", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "presenting a complete defense. He also argued that the state pre-", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "sented insufficient evidence for the jury to determine murder for", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "pecuniary gain, the aggravating factor necessary to sustain the cap-", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "ital murder conviction. The ACCA affirmed Martin’s conviction", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "and denied his request for rehearing, and the ASC summarily de-", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "nied Martin’s petition for certiorari.", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "E. The Federal Habeas Proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "After the ASC denied review, Martin filed a habeas corpus", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in the Southern District of", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "Alabama based on the same three grounds raised in his direct ap-", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "peal. The state did not address the merits of the confrontation and", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "complete defense claims and instead argued they were procedur-", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "ally defaulted. For the sufficiency of the evidence claim, the state", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "conceded that Martin presented it on direct appeal but argued it", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "failed on the merits.", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "deny in part and dismiss in part Martin’s petition and grant him a", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "certificate of appealability for his confrontation and complete de-", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "fense claims, but not his sufficiency of the evidence claim (“COA”).", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "The magistrate judge, sua sponte, concluded that Martin’s suffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 16 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 17", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "ciency of the evidence claim was unexhausted and procedurally de-", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "faulted, and declined to address it on the merits. The magistrate", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "judge then determined that Martin’s confrontation and complete", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "defense claims were not procedurally defaulted and failed on the", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "merits.", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "The state objected to the magistrate judge’s determination", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "that Martin’s confrontation and complete defense claims were not", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "procedurally defaulted. Martin objected to the magistrate judge’s", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "determination that AEDPA deference applied to review of his con-", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "frontation and complete defense claims. Alternatively, he main-", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "tained that his confrontation claim and complete defense claims", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "should succeed on the merits under AEDPA deference. He further", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "objected to the magistrate judge’s determination that his suffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "ciency of the evidence claim was procedurally defaulted and main-", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "tained that relief should be granted on the merits, or alternatively", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "that he should be granted a COA on that claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "The district judge adopted the report and recommendation,", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "overruled Martin’s and the state’s objections, and alternatively", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "found that the sufficiency claim failed on the merits. The district", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "court granted Martin a COA and entered final judgment. Martin’s", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "COA specifies these issues:", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "(1) Whether the state waived any exhaustion defense", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "to the sufficiency claim by acknowledging that the", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "claim “was presented on direct appeal” in its response", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "to the petition;", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 17 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "18 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "(2) Whether Martin exhausted his sufficiency claim in", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "state court by bringing state law claims based on the", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "same “reasonable doubt” standard applicable to fed-", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "eral claims;", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "(3) Whether, if the sufficiency claim was exhausted,", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "the Alabama courts’ conclusion that the state suffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "ciently proved that Martin committed murder for pe-", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "cuniary gain was contrary to, or involved an unrea-", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "sonable application of, clearly established federal law", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "or was based on an unreasonable determination of", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "facts in light of the evidence;", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "(4) Whether the Alabama courts’ decision to uphold", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "the preclusion order was contrary to, or involved an", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "unreasonable application of, clearly established fed-", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "eral law as determined by the Supreme Court of the", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "United States, specifically the Confrontation Clause", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "of the Sixth Amendment;", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "(5) Whether the Alabama courts’ decision to uphold", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "the preclusion order was contrary to, or involved an", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "unreasonable application of, clearly established Fed-", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "eral law as determined by the Supreme Court of the", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "United States, specifically the Sixth and Fourteenth", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "Amendments of the Constitution and the ensuing", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "right to present a complete defense.", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "Doc. 40 at 1–2 (citation modified).", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 18 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 19", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "II. STANDARD OF REVIEW", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "“We review a court’s decision to deny a § 2254 petition de", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "novo, applying a de novo standard to legal conclusions and a clear", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "error standard to factual findings.” Carruth v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "Corr., 93 F.4th 1338, 1352 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 208", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "(2024).", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "If “a claim is properly presented to the state court, but the", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "state court does not adjudicate it on the merits, we review de", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "novo.” Mason v. Allen, 605 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "omitted). But when a state court adjudicates a petitioner’s claim on", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "the merits, AEDPA further governs our review. AEDPA prohibits", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "relief unless the state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to, or in-", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "volved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). “If a state court unreasonably", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "applied federal law or unreasonably determined the facts in a case,", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "we review the underlying claim de novo.” King v. Warden, Ga. Diag-", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "nostic Prison, 69 F.4th 856, 867 (11th Cir. 2023) (emphasis omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a state court’s decision is “con-", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "trary to . . . clearly established Federal law” when it “appl[ies] a rule", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "law,” or when it “reach[es] a different result from the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "Court when faced with materially indistinguishable facts.” Davis v.", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 19 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "20 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 120 F.4th 768, 788 (11th Cir. 2024) (cita-", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "tion modified), petition for cert. filed, No. 25-1410 (U.S. June 18,", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "2026). An “unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Fed-", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "eral law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), occurs when “the state court cor-", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "rectly identifies the governing legal principle . . . but unreasonably", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "applies it to the facts of the particular case.” Davis, 120 F.4th at 788", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "(citation modified). “A state court unreasonably applies federal law", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "only if no fairminded jurist could agree with the state court’s de-", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "termination or conclusion.” King, 69 F.4th at 867 (citation modi-", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "fied).", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "For our review of habeas corpus petitions filed pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), “a state court’s factual determinations are", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "‘presumed to be correct,’” and that presumption can be overcome", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "only “by clear and convincing evidence.” Pye v. Warden, Ga. Diag-", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "nostic Prison, 50 F.4th 1025, 1035 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). Still, “[e]ven if the state court made a clearly", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "erroneous factual determination, that doesn’t necessarily mean the", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "state court’s ‘decision’ was ‘based on’ an ‘unreasonable determina-", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "tion of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "proceeding.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)). “Depending on", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "the importance of the factual error to the state court’s ultimate ‘de-", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "cision,’ that decision might still be reasonable even if some of the", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "state court’s individual factual findings were erroneous—so long as", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "the decision, taken as a whole, doesn’t constitute an ‘unreasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "determination of the facts’ and isn’t ‘based on’ any such determi-", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "nation.” Id. (citation modified).", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 20 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 21", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "III. DISCUSSION", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "We begin our discussion by examining whether Martin’s", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "claims were procedurally defaulted. Finding no default, we next ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "plain why Martin’s confrontation claim is not subject to AEDPA", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "deference but still fails under our de novo review. Then, we discuss", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "why AEDPA deference applies to Martin’s complete defense claim", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "and why it fails under that standard. Finally, we explain why Mar-", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "tin’s sufficiency of the evidence claim fails under AEDPA.", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "A. Procedural Default", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "On appeal, the state argues that Martin has procedurally de-", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "faulted all three of his claims. Martin maintains he did not proce-", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "durally default his claims because he exhausted them by raising", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "them throughout his state court proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "“Habeas petitioners generally cannot raise claims in federal", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "court that were not first exhausted in state court.” Kelley v. Sec’y, Fla.", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "Dep’t of Corr., 377 F.3d 1317, 1343 (11th Cir. 2004). Whether a peti-", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "tioner exhausted a claim presents a mixed question of law and fact,", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "subject to our de novo review. See Fox v. Kelso, 911 F.2d 563, 568 (11th", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "Cir. 1990). “To properly exhaust a claim, the petitioner must afford", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "the State a full and fair opportunity to address and resolve the claim", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "on the merits.” Kelley, 377 F.3d at 1343 (citation modified).", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "The exhaustion requirement is not satisfied if the petitioner", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "(1) fails to raise a federal claim in the state court, see Bailey v. Nagle,", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "172 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 1999), or (2) fails to raise a claim in", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "terms of federal law, Jimenez v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 481 F.3d 1337, 1342", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "(11th Cir. 2007). A petitioner is not required, however, to give “a", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 21 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "22 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "separate federal law heading to each of the claims they raise in state", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "court to ensure exhaustion for federal review.” Kelley, 377 F.3d at", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "1344. Instead, we “simply require that petitioners present their", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "claims to the state courts such that the reasonable reader would", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "understand each claim’s particular legal basis and specific factual", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "foundation.” Id. at 1344–45.", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "1. Confrontation and Complete Defense", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "The state argues Martin did not exhaust his confrontation", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "and complete defense claims because the Alabama Rules of Evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "dence govern witness testimony on prior misconduct or evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "suppression, and the ACCA addressed Martin’s challenge to the", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "preclusion order under those rules. As Martin states in his reply,", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "however, the state’s argument is misplaced because exhaustion de-", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "pends on whether the petitioner presented the claim to the state", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "courts, not how the state courts resolved it. Picard v. Connor, 404", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (“[O]nce the federal claim has been fairly pre-", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "sented to the state courts, the exhaustion requirement is satis-", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "fied.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "The state concedes in its briefing that, on direct appeal, Mar-", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "tin cited federal case law in arguing “that he had the constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "right to ‘question the [s]tate’s witnesses about their own miscon-", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "duct and their actions to cover up that misconduct.’” Martin’s con-", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "frontation claim presented in his habeas petition is a “carbon cop[y]", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "of the claim[]” he “presented to the state courts.” Kelley, 377 F.3d at", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "1344. We conclude that Martin exhausted his confrontation claim", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "by presenting it at each level of the Alabama courts. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 22 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 23", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "We likewise agree with the district court that Martin ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "hausted his complete defense claim by presenting it at each level of", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "the Alabama courts. Martin presented his claim in his motion in", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "limine in the trial court. Additionally, Martin presented his claim in", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "his brief submitted to the ACCA and in his petition asking the ASC", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "for a writ of certiorari.", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "2. Sufficiency of the Evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "Martin maintains the district court erred in sua sponte ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "that his sufficiency of the evidence claim was not exhausted, be-", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "cause the state waived an exhaustion defense. The state argues it", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "did not waive exhaustion because, in its view, acknowledging that", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "Martin raised a sufficiency claim and addressing it on the merits is", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "not a waiver of an exhaustion defense. We agree with Martin.", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "“States can waive procedural bar defenses in federal habeas", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "proceedings, including exhaustion.” Vazquez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "Corr., 827 F.3d 964, 966 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation modified). “A", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "state’s mere failure to raise exhaustion does not constitute a waiver", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "under AEDPA, which mandates that a State shall not be deemed to", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "have waived the exhaustion requirement unless the State, through", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "counsel, expressly waives the requirement.” Id. (citation modified);", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "In Vazquez, we determined that the state had waived exhaus-", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "tion because it maintained the petitioner’s claim had been “raised", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "at the state level.” 827 F.3d at 966–67 & n.1. This is similar to the", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "state’s assertion here that Martin’s sufficiency of the evidence claim", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "“was presented on direct appeal.” We explained that to determine", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 23 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "24 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "express waiver we look at the state’s district court brief to see if the", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "state communicates an intention not to pursue an exhaustion de-", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "fense. Id. at 967.", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "Here, we conclude that the state reviewed the record and", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "elected to address the sufficiency claim on the merits rather than", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "assert an exhaustion defense for the following reasons. First, the", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "state affirmatively represented that Martin presented the suffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "ciency claim on direct appeal. Second, the state devoted over five", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "pages to analyzing the merits of Martin’s sufficiency claim. Finally,", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "the state expressly raised exhaustion as to Martin’s confrontation", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "and complete defense claims but not the sufficiency of the evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "claim. Therefore, “[b]ased on our review of the state’s district court", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "brief, we presume that the state examined the state court record", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "and, in doing so, affirmatively concluded it need not pursue an ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "haustion defense.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, “where a state waives exhaustion, the district", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "court may consider the procedural bar sua sponte if requiring the", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "petitioner to return to state court to exhaust his claims serves an", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "important federal interest.” Id. at 966 (citation modified). We have", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "identified several factors a district court may consider to determine", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "whether to exercise its discretion to accept or reject a state’s ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "haustion waiver:", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "whether extensive or minimal fact finding is involved", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "or only questions of law on an already adequate rec-", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "ord and, if fact finding is involved, whether it may be", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "done as part of a federal hearing required on other", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 24 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 25", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "issues; how long since petitioner’s conviction and sen-", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "tence were imposed, how long state exhaustion will", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "require, and the comparative status of the dockets of", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "federal and state courts; and whether there are funda-", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "mental state policies at stake in the case or threshold", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "issues of undecided state law.", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "Id. at 966–67 (citation modified) (quoting Thompson v. Wainwright,", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "714 F.2d 1495, 1509 (11th Cir. 1983)).", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "The district court “considering the exhaustion issue sua", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "sponte . . . did not point to any ‘important federal interest’ or", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "Thompson factors that required a rejection of the state’s waiver.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "at 967 (citation modified). Therefore, the district court erred in re-", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "jecting the state’s express waiver. Id. But “[b]ecause the district", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "court did . . . make alternative findings regarding the merits of", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "[Martin’s] claim,” we conclude this error was harmless, and we af-", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "firm the district court’s merits determination for the reasons dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "cussed infra Part III.D. Id. at 968.", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "B. Confrontation", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "1. AEDPA Deference Does Not Apply", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "Martin maintains that AEDPA deference does not govern", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "our review of his confrontation claim, which is based upon the pre-", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "clusion order, because the ACCA did not review the claim on the", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "merits. The state appears to agree because it maintains the ACCA", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "treated the confrontation and complete defense claims “as a matter", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 25 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "26 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "of pure state law, not federal law . . . [because] the [A]CCA inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "preted and applied only Alabama law to determine that the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "court properly excluded the evidence.”", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "“If . . . no state court has adjudicated the merits of a claim", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "that was properly presented, federal habeas review is not subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "the deferential standard that applies under AEDPA[,] . . . and the", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "claim is reviewed de novo.” Brewster v. Hetzel, 913 F.3d 1042, 1051", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "(11th Cir. 2019) (emphasis omitted) (citation modified). But we", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "must begin with a presumption that the “federal claim was adjudi-", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "cated on the merits.” Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 301 (2013).", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, the presumption is rebuttable. Id. The presumption", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "may be rebutted, for example, if “a defendant claimed in state court", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "that something that occurred at trial violated both a provision of", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "the Federal Constitution and a related provision of state law, and .", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": ". . the state court, in denying relief, made no reference to federal", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "law . . . [and] the state standard is less protective . . . [o]r . . . if the", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "state standard is quite different from the federal standard.” Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "301–02; see also Childers v. Floyd, 736 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir. 2013)", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "(en banc) (“To determine whether the presumption has been re-", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "butted, we look to the state court’s decision and the record in the", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "case to determine whether ‘the evidence leads very clearly to the", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "conclusion that the federal claim was inadvertently overlooked in", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "the state court.’” (citation modified) (quoting Johnson, 568 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "303)).", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 26 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 27", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "Martin presented his claim regarding the preclusion order as", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "a violation of Alabama’s evidentiary rules and the Sixth Amend-", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "ment right to confront witnesses. In its order denying relief, the", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "ACCA referenced only Alabama Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "Ex parte Loins, 771 So. 2d 1093, 1103 (Ala. 2000). The ACCA did", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "not mention or cite any state or federal case addressing Martin’s", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "confrontation claim. Thus, for Martin to overcome our presump-", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "tion that the ACCA adjudicated the claim on the merits, we must", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "determine whether the “state-law rule[s] [that the ACCA relied on", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "in denying relief subsume] the federal standard—that is, if [the", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "rules were] at least as protective as the federal standard.” Johnson,", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "568 U.S. at 301. We conclude that they were not.", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "In Childers, we held that a Florida appellate court adjudicated", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "a habeas petitioner’s confrontation claim on the merits, even", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "though it analyzed the claim only under Florida’s evidentiary rules.", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "736 F.3d at 1334–35. We reasoned that Florida Rule of Evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "90.608, which expressly permits impeachment through prior incon-", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "sistent statements, proof of bias, and other attacks on credibility,", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "subject to Rule 90.403’s balancing test, “fit hand in glove with the", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "rights guaranteed under the Confrontation Clause.” Id. at 1335.", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "Thus, we said the state court’s application of Rule 90.608 neces-", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "sarily resolved the same issues presented by the federal constitu-", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "tional claim because “Florida’s rules of evidence gave [the peti-", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "tioner] the same right of confrontation he enjoyed under the Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "frontation Clause [which is] the right to expose a witness’s motiva-", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "tion in testifying.” Id. at 1334. (citation modified).", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 27 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "28 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "By contrast, Alabama Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 are gen-", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "eral rules governing the admissibility of relevant evidence and the", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "exclusion of relevant evidence whose probative value is substan-", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "tially outweighed by considerations such as unfair prejudice, con-", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "fusion, or delay. See Ala. R. Evid. 402, 403. Unlike Florida Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "90.608, neither Alabama rule specifically governs impeachment by", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "prior inconsistent statements, bias, or other forms of cross-exami-", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "nation protected by the Confrontation Clause. Cf. Childers, 736 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "at 1334–35.", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "The ACCA’s reference to Ex parte Loins also does not lead", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "us to presume that it adjudicated Martin’s confrontation claim on", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "the merits. The portion of the Loins decision that the ACCA", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "quoted addressed whether the trial court improperly admitted pho-", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "tographic evidence of a murder victim’s mutilated body under Al-", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "abama’s evidentiary rules. Loins, 771 So. 2d at 1103–05. The Log-", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "gins court did not address the exclusion of impeachment evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "or the limitation of cross-examination.", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "Because the ACCA did not apply the federal constitutional", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "standard to the claim presented, and the state evidentiary standards", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "the ACCA applied did not subsume the federal standard, “the evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "dence leads very clearly to the conclusion that a federal claim was", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "inadvertently overlooked in state court.” Johnson, 568 U.S. at 303.", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "And as noted, the state concedes that the ACCA treated Martin’s", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "confrontation claim as a matter of purely state law, not federal law.", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "See Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349, 1365 (11th Cir. 2001) (determin-", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "ing that AEDPA deference did not apply when the Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 28 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 29", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "of Georgia did not apply any federal law and the State of Georgia", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "“concede[d] that the Georgia Supreme Court did not apply federal", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "law”). Therefore, we review Martin’s confrontation claim de novo.", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "Mason, 605 F.3d at 1119.", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "2. Merits", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "Martin contends that the preclusion order prevented his trial", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "counsel from asking the officers about investigative bias, why they", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "failed to pursue leads, the state’s misconduct during the first trial,", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "and how that influenced each witness’s view of his guilt. Martin", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "generally argues that the preclusion order violated his right to con-", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "front several officers who testified at the second trial. But Martin", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "provides a specific argument only as to one officer, Robert Scheer", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "of the Alabama Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, we find that he", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "abandoned any argument regarding the right to confront the other", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "officers. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "81 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a claim is abandoned if a party", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "offers no argument or citation supporting it).", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "Under the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has the", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "right to confront his accusers, which includes the right to effective", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "cross-examination. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986).", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "Effective cross-examination requires that the defendant be able to", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "expose a witness’s motivation and potential biases in testifying. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "at 678–79. However, “trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 29 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "30 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the wit-", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "ness’[s] safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "relevant.” Id. at 679. To decide whether a limitation on cross-exam-", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "ination violated the Confrontation Clause, we consider “whether a", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "reasonable jury would have received a significantly different im-", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "pression of the witness’[s] credibility had counsel pursued the pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "posed line of cross-examination.” United States v. Whyte, 928 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "1317, 1334 (11th Cir. 2019) (citation modified).", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "The preclusion order barred “any . . . introduction of evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "dence, cross‑examination, or argument concerning any of the prior", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "procedural history” from the prior trial, the Rule 32 proceedings,", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "the proceedings on the motion for new trial, or the motion to dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "miss the indictment. This language excluded from trial lines of", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "questioning concerning the procedural history and the Rule 32", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "court’s formal findings of misconduct based on the Brady viola-", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "tions. The order, however, did not prevent Martin from arguing", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "the investigation was flawed. At the second trial Martin introduced", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "the previously suppressed evidence and Williams, Taylor, Jackson,", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "and Broach testified at the second trial. Additionally, a review of", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "the record demonstrates that Martin elicited substantial cross-ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "amination testimony from Scheer regarding the investigators’ pur-", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "ported failures to pursue leads and to investigate alternative sus-", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "pects. Martin challenged Scheer’s selective reliance on Williams’s", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "statement, suggested that the focus on him was premature, and de-", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "veloped a theme that Scheer uncritically accepted Williams’s ac-", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "count while minimally investigating Williams as an alternative sus-", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 30 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 31", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "pect. Martin also highlighted that Scheer failed to trace the anony-", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "mous call that implicated Williams, which implied investigative", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "tunnel vision. Therefore, we find that the lines of questioning that", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "the court allowed Martin to pursue exposed Scheer’s potential bias", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "and allowed the jury to evaluate his credibility, satisfying the Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "frontation Clause.", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "Additionally, Martin repeatedly questioned Scheer about the", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "investigators’ failure to pursue Broach’s lead and other potentially", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "exculpatory evidence. Rather than merely asking about isolated", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "credibility issues, Martin connected these investigative omissions", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "to the possibility that law enforcement’s approach was flawed and", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "incomplete. This cross-examination exposed the jury to the weak-", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "nesses in the state’s case that Martin contends should now entitle", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "him to Confrontation Clause relief. Although Martin could not", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "frame questions around the procedural history, prior court find-", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "ings, or formal characterizations of Brady violations, the record in-", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "dicates that his counsel elicited the substantive facts necessary for", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "the jury to assess investigative bias and witness reliability. See", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1296–97 (11th Cir. 2009)", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "(“The Sixth Amendment does not require unlimited inquiry into", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "the potential bias of a witness.” (citation modified)).", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "The state, of course, chose not to call Calhoun as a witness.", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "Martin could have called Calhoun as a witness, but the trial judge", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "cautioned that he would not limit Calhoun’s testimony to matters", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "within the scope of Martin’s direct examination. We conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "the absence of this limitation did not violate Martin’s rights.", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 31 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "32 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "Under de novo review, we conclude that the preclusion or-", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "der did not deprive Martin of an opportunity to meaningfully con-", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "front the state’s witnesses and that the requirements of the Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "frontation Clause were satisfied. Whyte, 928 F.3d at 1334. We can-", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "not say that a reasonable jury would have reached a significantly", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "different impression of Scheer’s credibility absent the order. There-", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "fore, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Martin’s confronta-", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "tion claim fails on the merits.", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "C. Complete Defense", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "1. AEDPA Deference Applies", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "Martin maintains that the ACCA failed to consider his com-", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "plete defense claim on the merits. Unlike Martin’s confrontation", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "claim, the ACCA discussed Martin’s ability to present his defense", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "by introducing at the second trial the evidence that had been sup-", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "pressed. And at that trial, the trial court allowed prior statements", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "contained in affidavits and previous witness testimony. Thus, we", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "presume that Martin’s complete defense claim was adjudicated on", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "the merits, even though the ACCA did not cite any federal law. See", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "Johnson, 568 U.S. at 301. We will therefore review Martin’s com-", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "plete defense claim under AEDPA’s deferential standard.", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "2. Merits", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "Martin argues that the ACCA’s rejection of his complete de-", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "fense claim was contrary to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Crane", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986), Van Arsdall, and United States v.", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998). Martin argues that he was unable to", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 32 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 33", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "provide a complete defense because the preclusion order pre-", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "vented him from eliciting testimony about how the state’s miscon-", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "duct and suppression of evidence led to (1) the inability of investi-", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "gators to trace the call implicating Williams, (2) the inability of", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "Martin or the state to pursue the man Broach observed, and (3) the", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "inability of Martin to call some witnesses because they had died,", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "and to question several witnesses effectively because they could", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "not remember important facts.", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "“[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane,", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "476 U.S. at 690 (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "(1984)). But “well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "potential to mislead the jury.” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "319, 326 (2006).", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "Despite the serious nature of the state’s misconduct, none of", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "the Supreme Court decisions Martin cites clearly establish a consti-", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "tutional right to inform the jury that the state suppressed evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "in a prior proceeding. Davis, 120 F.4th at 788. In Crane, the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "Court held that a defendant may introduce evidence concerning", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "the circumstances of a confession to challenge its reliability. 476", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "U.S. at 690–91. In Van Arsdall, the Supreme Court addressed limits", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "on cross-examination designed to expose bias. 475 U.S. at 678–79.", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "And in Scheffer, the Supreme Court rejected a “complete defense”", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "challenge to a per se rule excluding polygraph evidence, holding", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 33 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "34 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "that the exclusion did not violate the Sixth Amendment because", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "the defendant remained free to present his version of events and to", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "challenge the prosecution’s case through other admissible evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "dence, as is the case here. 523 U.S. at 317.", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "As we discussed in Part III.B.2, at his second trial, Martin in-", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "troduced the previously suppressed evidence and was able to ques-", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "tion the officers about their botched investigation. We must be", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "mindful that “a defendant’s right to present a complete defense is", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "not absolute, and is subject to reasonable restrictions.” United States", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "v. Mitrovic, 890 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2018). Here, the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "judge implemented reasonable restrictions to prevent the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "from focusing on prosecutorial misconduct rather than the evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "dence of Martin’s innocence or guilt.", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "Additionally, “if the court permits a defendant to present the", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "essence of his desired argument to the jury, his right to present a", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "complete defense has not been prejudiced.” United States v. Harris,", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "916 F.3d 948, 959 (11th Cir. 2019). The trial court permitted Martin", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "to present evidence bearing on the investigators’ failure to pursue", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "leads and alternative suspects. Therefore, we conclude that the", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "ACCA’s rejection of Martin’s complete defense claim was neither", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly es-", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "tablished federal law.", "paragraph_id": "para_918" }, { "text": "D. Sufficiency of the Evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "Martin does not dispute that the ACCA adjudicated his suf-", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "ficiency claim on the merits. The Due Process Clause of the Four-", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "teenth Amendment guarantees “that no person shall be made to", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 34 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 35", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "suffer the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "proof—defined as evidence necessary to convince a trier of fact be-", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "yond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "offense.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316 (1979).", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "Unlike his other claims, Martin challenges the ACCA’s rul-", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "ing on his sufficiency of the evidence claim under § 2254(d)(1) and", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "(d)(2). Martin argues that under § 2254(d)(1), the ACCA unreason-", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "ably applied the Jackson standard to the facts of his case because no", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "fairminded jurist could agree with the ACCA’s conclusion that the", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "state presented sufficient evidence that Martin killed his wife for", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "pecuniary gain. Martin further argues that under § 2254(d)(2), the", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "ACCA’s factual determination that the state presented evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "that, viewed in its favor, was sufficient to establish a prima facie", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "case of capital murder for pecuniary gain was unreasonable in light", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "of the evidence presented during his second trial. The state main-", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "tains that the circumstantial evidence it elicited at trial directly or", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "indirectly supported that Martin murdered his wife for pecuniary", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "gain.", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "We “look to state law for the substantive elements of the", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "criminal offense.” Preston v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 785 F.3d 449,", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "464 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation modified). To convict Martin of capi-", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "tal murder for pecuniary gain, the jury had to find beyond a rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "sonable doubt that Martin, with the intent to cause the death of", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "another person, caused the death of another person for pecuniary", "paragraph_id": "para_948" }, { "text": "gain or other valuable consideration. Ala. Code §§ 13A-5-40(a)(7),", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 35 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "36 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "13A-6-2(a)(1) (1975). “In order to apply the aggravating circum-", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": "stance of [capital murder] for pecuniary gain, it is clear that the re-", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "ceipt of something of pecuniary value must be the impetus for the", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "murder.” Henderson v. State, 584 So. 2d 841, 858 (Ala. Crim. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "1988) (emphasis added) (citation modified).", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "The ACCA concluded that the state presented sufficient ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "idence to establish a prima facie case of murder for pecuniary gain", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "based on the following: (1) evidence that the scene was staged to", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "look like an accident, (2) Martin prepared an accident report that", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "was similar to an accident that occurred a year prior, (3) Martin and", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "Hammoleketh had marital problems, (4) Martin was the last", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "known person to see Hammoleketh alive, (5) Taylor testified that", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "he saw a trooper in the area, and (6) when asked by police during", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "the investigation, Martin did not disclose all of Hammoleketh’s life", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "insurance policies. We address Martin’s § 2254(d)(2) challenge first.", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "1. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "The evidence of pecuniary gain is weak. The ACCA made", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "only one finding that bears on whether Martin received life insur-", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "ance proceeds: the impetus of the murder was “life-insurance poli-", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "cies” Martin held on Hammoleketh and failed to disclose, particu-", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "larly “[o]ne large policy [that] would pay in the event that Ham-", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "moleketh was killed in a vehicular accident.” To support its finding,", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "the ACCA determined that the state offered evidence that sup-", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "ported “Martin held a policy insuring the life of Hammoleketh for", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "$150,000; this amount was collectible only if Hammoleketh died in", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "a passenger vehicle.” (emphasis added). Besides that policy, the", "paragraph_id": "para_977" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 36 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 37", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "ACCA maintained “[t]here were also various other insurance poli-", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "cies for minor amounts.” As Martin points out, the ACCA’s factual", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "findings directly bearing on pecuniary gain are not supported by", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "the record.", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "First, the $150,000 policy the ACCA referenced is not a life", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "insurance policy. It is an accidental death and dismemberment in-", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "surance policy. This distinction matters. Scheer testified that he spe-", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "cifically asked Martin to bring him “all of the life insurance that he", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "had on Hammoleketh.” The state did not dispute that Martin dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "closed a $200,000 life insurance policy he had on Hammoleketh", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "and a policy he had on himself. Scheer testified that he did not ask", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "Martin about accidental death insurance policies.", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "Second, the record does not support that the state presented", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "evidence that Martin held that $150,000 policy on Hammoleketh.", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "The policy’s enrollment form is signed by Hammoleketh. And dur-", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "ing a sidebar, the state conceded to the trial judge, “[A]s far as any", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "arguments about who took out the policy, we understand that Mrs.", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "Martin may be the one who actually purchased the policy. . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "Third, the accidental death policy never came into evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "during the second trial. The parties argued over admission of the", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "policy at a sidebar on a Friday toward the end of the state’s presen-", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "tation of evidence. During the sidebar, the state said that it needed", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "the judge to rule on the admissibility of the policy so its financial", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "expert could prepare a summary or demonstrative to show the jury", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "that following Monday, if the judge determined there was no au-", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "thentication problem. The judge told the state to assume the policy", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 37 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "38 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_1007" }, { "text": "would be admitted so it could provide the defense with a copy of", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "whatever the witness was preparing, and he would decide admissi-", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "bility on Monday.", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "When court resumed on Monday, the state rested without", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "calling its financial expert. Despite lacking proper authentication", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "and a witness, the state maintained during sidebar in Martin’s case-", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "in-chief that “[t]he mere existence of the [$150,000] policy is the", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "only thing that is [relevant] to the [s]tate’s case in chief at this time.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "Throughout the trial, the trial judge gave several reasons why the", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "policy would not be admitted. First, the state’s custodian-of-record", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "affidavit, certifying the policy was a duplicate of the original, did", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "not comply with Alabama’s evidentiary rules because several policy", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "pages were missing. Second, the state had no witness to authenti-", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "cate the policy. Third, even if the state had properly authenticated", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "the policy, it had no witness to explain what the policy language", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "meant, and the trial judge determined that it would be confusing", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "to simply give the jury a copy of the policy to figure it out them-", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "selves.", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "Since the state never admitted the accidental death policy", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "into evidence and it presented no witness to support the capital part", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "of its case, we conclude that Martin has presented clear and con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "vincing evidence to overcome our presumption that the ACCA’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "factual determinations regarding pecuniary gain are correct under", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Pye, 50 F.4th at 1035.", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 38 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 39", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "Nonetheless, even though Martin has met his burden under", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "§ 2254(e)(1), the ACCA’s ultimate decision to reject Martin’s suffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "ciency of the evidence claim may still be based on a “reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "[s]tate court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). AEDPA requires", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "us to look at all the evidence presented in the state court proceed-", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "ing, not just the evidence the state presented. Id. At trial, the state", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "presented testimony that Martin was aware of and disclosed to", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "Scheer a $200,000 policy that insured Hammoleketh’s life. Martin", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "then presented testimony from his insurance expert that (1) the", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "$200,000 policy was an increase from the $85,000 life insurance pol-", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "icy that Hammoleketh lost when she stopped working at her job in", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "March 1995, (2) the Martins had a lot of credit card debt but were", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "making their payments, and (3) the Martins had taken out a second", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "mortgage to pay down debt.", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "As we said, the state’s evidence on pecuniary gain is weak.", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "After the state withdrew its financial expert and failed to introduce", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "the purportedly undisclosed accidental death policy into evidence,", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "Martin tried to affirmatively negate that the state had met its bur-", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "den to prove murder for pecuniary gain. In doing so, he supplied", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "the jury with unfavorable evidence and gave the state an oppor-", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "tunity to introduce additional evidence of pecuniary motive. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "jury was not required to credit how Martin’s witnesses character-", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "ized his financial circumstances. Viewing this evidence in conjunc-", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "tion with the non-pecuniary evidence that the ACCA identified, we", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "cannot say that the ACCA made an unreasonable determination of", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "the facts under § 2254(d)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 39 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "40 Opinion of the Court 24-11986", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "2. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)", "paragraph_id": "para_1063" }, { "text": "To prevail on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "a petitioner must prove that “after viewing the evidence in the light", "paragraph_id": "para_1065" }, { "text": "most favorable to the prosecution, [no] rational trier of fact could", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_1067" }, { "text": "doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. But “[w]hen the record reflects", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "facts that support conflicting inferences, there is a presumption that", "paragraph_id": "para_1069" }, { "text": "the jury resolved those conflicts in favor of the prosecution and", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "against the defendant.” Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1172", "paragraph_id": "para_1071" }, { "text": "(11th Cir. 2001).", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "AEDPA does not require overwhelming evidence of guilt.", "paragraph_id": "para_1073" }, { "text": "“[W]hen the last state court to decide a prisoner’s federal claim ex-", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "plains its decision on the merits in a reasoned opinion . . . a federal", "paragraph_id": "para_1075" }, { "text": "habeas court simply reviews the specific reasons given by the state", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "court and defers to those reasons if they are reasonable.” Wilson v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1077" }, { "text": "Sellers, 584 U.S. 122, 125 (2018). However, in determining whether", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "an unreasonable application of Jackson occurred “we are not limited", "paragraph_id": "para_1079" }, { "text": "by the particular justifications the state court provided for its deci-", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "sion, and we may consider additional rationales that support the", "paragraph_id": "para_1081" }, { "text": "state court’s determination.” Davis, 120 F.4th at 788. Thus, viewing", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "tion, as discussed in Part III.D.1, we cannot say that no rational trier", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "of fact could have found that Martin killed his wife for pecuniary", "paragraph_id": "para_1085" }, { "text": "gain. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319. Therefore, we conclude that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "ACCA’s rejection of Martin’s sufficiency of the evidence claim was", "paragraph_id": "para_1087" }, { "text": "neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 40 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_1089" }, { "text": "24-11986 Opinion of the Court 41", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "Jackson under § 2254(d)(1), and was not based on an unreasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "determination of the facts under § 2254(d)(2).", "paragraph_id": "para_1092" }, { "text": "IV. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.", "paragraph_id": "para_1094" }, { "text": "USCA11 Case: 24-11986 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 09/14/2026 Page: 41 of 41", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" } ], "word_count": 10661, "cites": [ "404\nU.S. 270", "568 U.S. 289", "475 U.S. 673", "476 U.S. 683", "523 U.S. 303", "467 U.S. 479", "547 U.S.\n319", "443 U.S. 307", "584 U.S. 122", "93 F.4th 1338", "605 F.3d 1114", "69 F.4th 856", "120 F.4th 768", "50 F.4th 1025", "377 F.3d 1317", "911 F.2d 563", "172 F.3d 1299", "481 F.3d 1337", "827 F.3d 964", "714 F.2d 1495", "913 F.3d 1042", "736 F.3d 1331", "253 F.3d 1349", "739 F.3d 678", "928 F.3d\n1317", "579 F.3d 1282", "890 F.3d 1217", "916 F.3d 948", "785 F.3d 449", "256 F.3d 1156" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "05202e9e60ecda9e6b6e8147fadc0538f74b7b6e7ab1943a6b5147f16ccc549f", "source_url": "http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202411986.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T06:06:53.459+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca11-24-11986-2026-09-14", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-24-11986-2026-09-14", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-24-11986-2026-09-14", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca11-24-11986-2026-09-14", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "05202e9e60ecda9e6b6e8147fadc0538f74b7b6e7ab1943a6b5147f16ccc549f", "recomputed_sha256": "05202e9e60ecda9e6b6e8147fadc0538f74b7b6e7ab1943a6b5147f16ccc549f", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-08T06:32:37.961Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:d9fd5cebe095efd06fb8eea6b2939210ed0de518535ba358099dc99966afe4ec", "version": "legal-2026-10-08", "expires": "2026-10-09T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-08+legal-2026-10-08+2026-10-08T06:21:36", "content_hash": "sha256:d9fd5cebe095efd06fb8eea6b2939210ed0de518535ba358099dc99966afe4ec", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-08T07:32:38.128Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-11986-2026-09-14", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }