Whether the Fourth Circuit violated Strickland v. Washington in its prejudice analysis

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Sammie Louis Stokes, while serving a prison sentence, contracted to kill Connie Snipes. When released he did just that, brutally raping her with codefendant Norris Martin before shooting her. Several days later, Stokes murdered Doug Ferguson to ensure Ferguson would not implicate him in the Snipes murder, and also to extract revenge for stealing from Stokes. South Carolina instituted capital case proceedings for the Snipes murder. In preparation for the October 1999 trial, defense counsel secured the services of experts, including a social worker, but ultimately did not present the known evidence of a disadvantaged and difficult childhood, fearing the negative impact cross-examination may have on the defense. A jury sentenced Stokes’s to death. After direct appeal, new counsel in collateral proceedings investigated Stokes’ history again and initially raised, but later withdrew, a claim of ineffective assistance regarding the mitigation case. Stokes received no relief in the state courts. In his subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action, another new team of attorneys asserted the mitigation claim again and that collateral counsel was ineffective in dropping the claim. The district court, over the Warden’s objection, held an evidentiary hearing on the factual basis for cause to excuse the default and the merits of the underlying claim. The district court found insufficient cause to excuse the default and no prejudice. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit rejected the district court’s findings and found both ii collateral counsel and trial counsel deficient in representation. In reweighing the evidence to determine prejudice, the majority extracted from the calculus the second murder and full circumstances of the capital case murder. The majority also failed to consider any negative impact the newly offered evidence would have had. It then resolved that confidence in the result was undermined because the newly presented evidence “could be enough to sway one juror” even in light of a highly aggravated case. The majority found resentencing was warranted. The questions presented are: I. Did the Fourth Circuit violate basic principles of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) when it failed to reweigh the whole of the evidence in its prejudice analysis to determine if there was a reasonable probability of a different result? II. Did the Fourth Circuit err in granting relief on a defaulted claim when trial counsel had reasonable strategic reasons not to pursue a “bad upbringing” mitigation defense, and collateral counsel had reasonable strategic reasons not to pursue an_ claim? Ill. Alternatively, should this case be held pending the outcome of Shinn v. Ramirez, No. 20-1009 (argued Dec. 8, 2021)? iii STATEMENT OF