Nelson v. United States, No. 15-3160 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseIn 2001, Nelson pled guilty to the kidnapping and unlawful interstate transportation of Pamela for the purpose of sexual abuse which resulted in her death. The government dropped a charge traveling across state lines with the intent to engage in a sex act with a female under the age of 12 which resulted in death. Days later, Nelson attempted suicide by ingesting prescription medicine. The penalty phase jury returned a death penalty verdict. The court allowed Nelson to address the court. Nelson, showing no remorse, blistered the court and the victim’s family with a profanity-laden tirade. The court imposed the death sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the rejection of Nelson’s 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. The jury heard substantial mitigating evidence and there was no reasonable probability that its death sentence verdict would have been different if the evidence produced at the habeas evidentiary hearing had been introduced during the penalty phase, so the district court did not err in denying Nelson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims concerning failure to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, failure to adequately investigate his mental health and failure to advise Nelson to decline to submit to a mental health exam by a government examiner.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas - Federal death penalty. For the court's opinion on Nelson's direct appeal, see U.S. v. Nelson, 347 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2003). For the court's prior opinion in Nelson's habeas, see Nelson v. United States, 297 F. App'x 563 (8th Cir. 2008). On Nelson's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, held: (1) the jury heard substantial mitigating evidence and there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of its deliberations on the death sentence would have been any different if the evidence produced at the habeas evidentiary hearing had been introduced during the penalty phase of the case, and the district court did not err in denying Nelson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims concerning failure to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, failure to adequately investigate his mental health and failure to advise or instruct Nelson to decline to submit to a mental health exam by a government examiner; and (2) Nelson's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty is not of the same time and type as the other ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his original petition and does not relate back to his original Section 2255 motion.
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.