Kemp v. Kelley, No. 15-3849 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioner, who was convicted of four counts of capital murder and sentenced to death on each count. The court held that trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence related to petitioner's childhood abuse, fetal-alcohol exposure, and post-traumatic stress disorder. In this case, counsel satisfied his obligation under Strickland v. Washington and his decision not to interview distant family members was reasonable. Counsel conducted a thorough investigation and reasonably decided to pursue a theory of imperfect self-defense. Furthermore, counsel's decision to hire an expert to evaluate the effect of petitioner's abusive childhood on his mental health was reasonable in the circumstances and counsel did not fail to act while potentially powerful mitigating evidence stared him in the face.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Melloy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Death Penalty Matter. The district court did not err in denying Kemp's Section 2254 petition which alleged that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence related to Kemp's childhood abuse, fetal-alcohol exposure and post-traumatic stress disorder; counsel's investigation of Kemp's background satisfied his Strickland obligation and his decision to complete the investigation himself was reasonable; decision not to interview distant family members was reasonable; decision to hire a psychologist to evaluate the effect of Kemp's abusive childhood on his mental health was reasonable in the circumstances; decision not to seek additional mitigating evidence in addition to that already gathered was within the realm of professionally reasonable judgment; issues not included in the certificate of appealability would not be considered.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.