Edward Dean Horsley

Background

Edward Dean Horsley was convicted and sentenced to death in Monroe County, Alabama for the capital offense of robbery in which the victim is intentionally killed under Ala.Code Sec. 13-11-2(a)(2) (1975). His guilt was not disputed. Both Horsley and his co-defendant Brian Baldwin confessed.

The offence

On Saturday, March 12, 1977, Horsley (then nineteen years old) and his co-defendant (then eighteen years old) escaped from a North Carolina prison camp. Horsley had been convicted of four counts of robbery during which a police officer was shot.

That evening, the murder victim, Naomi Rolon, sixteen years old, left her home in North Carolina to visit her father who was in the hospital. Horsley and Baldwin forcibly seized Rolon and her car and drove to Charlotte, N.C., despite pleas and prayers from the victim. In Charlotte, both men attempted to rape her and attempted to choke her to death. Rolon was stripped, stabbed with a knife in different parts of her body, run over with the car at least once, and locked in the trunk while they drove to Alabama.

On Monday afternoon, Horsley and Baldwin stole a pickup truck and drove both vehicles to a secluded wooded area. Baldwin took Naomi from the trunk and told Horsley to back over her with the car. Horsley tried twice, but the car became stuck. Baldwin then cut Naomi's throat with a hatchet. She died after this 40 hour ordeal.

Horsley and Baldwin abducted Rolon, commandeered her car, robbed her, and drove for more than 40 hours through North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Rolon was slain on March 14 in Monroe County, Alabama, where her body and her car were found on March 15.

Investigation and arrest

Horsley and Baldwin were arrested later that day after a high-speed chase in a pickup truck stolen in nearby Wilcox County, Alabama. Both gave statements at the Wilcox County Jail and were then indicted in Monroe County for aggravated robbery and murder.

At the time of their arrest, there was blood on Horsley’s clothes, but not on Baldwin’s. Forensic evidence developed after Baldwin’s trial indicated that Rolon had been beaten by a left-handed person; Horsley was left-handed and Baldwin was not.

Trial

Horsley was tried separately and was found guilty as charged by a jury which fixed his punishment at death by electrocution.

Within months, Baldwin and Horsley were convicted and sentenced to death following separate trials before all-white juries from which prosecutors excluded all prospective African American jurors. The trial lasted only two days—August 8 and 9, 1977.

At the Wilcox County Jail, Baldwin claimed his confession had been extracted by torture—beating and electroshock—after being threatened with hanging, shooting, and being beaten up if he did not tell them where the car was. Baldwin testified:

“They told me [if] I didn’t tell them where the car was, they was going to hang me, shoot me, beat me up,”
“Then they took handcuffs and handcuffed me to a bar and took an electric stick, the thing you stick cows with, and poked me with that.”

The trial judge, Robert E. Lee Key, called Baldwin a “boy” during the trial, and the prosecution called him “a savage.”

Sentencing

After Horsley's capital conviction, a sentencing hearing was conducted before the court. After the hearing, the trial court “having considered the evidence presented at the trial and at said sentence hearing,” entered a sentence order finding aggravating circumstances including:

1. the capital offense was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment;
2. the defendant was earlier convicted of a felony involving robbery, in the course of which a police officer was shot;
3. the capital felony was committed while defendant was engaged in commission of or flight after committing a robbery; and
4. the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.

The trial court found Horsley's age to be a mitigating circumstance. The trial court then found that the aggravating circumstances “far outweigh[ed]” the mitigating circumstances and sentenced Horsley to death.

During the sentencing hearing, the court told Horsley:

“Edward, this is your day in court to tell me what you have in your own behalf in the way of mitigating the sentence that has been imposed on you and I want to give you an opportunity to tell me whatever you feel like might be helpful to you to get this sentence reduced from electrocution to life imprisonment. Do you want tell me anything else other than what you've been asked about? . . . . . I am giving you now the opportunity to tell me anything in your whole life which you feel like might be helpful to you to get this sentence reduced....”

The sentencing court’s order stated:

“The Court now considers mitigating circumstances as described in Title 15, Section 342(9) of the 1940 Code of Alabama....”
“(a) The Court finds the only mitigating circumstance would be the age of the defendant at the time of the commission of the crime, to-wit, nineteen.”
“having considered the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances [plural] and after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it is the judgment of the Court that the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances....”

Appeals

Horsley petitioned for writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court in 1989 after challenging the conviction and sentence in state court. The district court entered a memorandum order in December 1991, denying certain claims and granting an evidentiary hearing on four specified claims. After a four-day evidentiary hearing, the district court denied all claims.

Horsley appealed the district court’s denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. He raised two claims that merit discussion:

1. the claim that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because the trial judge expressly limited consideration of mitigating circumstances to those enumerated in the Alabama death penalty statute; and
2. the claim that counsel was ineffective at sentencing for presenting no expert testimony to demonstrate Horsley's alleged vulnerability to domination by co-defendant Baldwin.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. The court concluded that any potential Lockett/Hitchcock error was harmless under the Brecht standard and that Horsley failed to show prejudice regarding counsel’s decision not to present expert mental health testimony.

In connection with sentencing-mitigation review, the appellate discussion included review of the sentencing judge’s invitation to Horsley to present mitigating evidence and the finding that only Horsley’s age was a statutory mitigating circumstance.

Claims and evidentiary findings related to counsel’s performance

Horsley claimed counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to present expert mental health testimony to demonstrate Horsley’s vulnerability to domination by Baldwin. The district court conducted a four-day federal evidentiary hearing in which Horsley presented lay witnesses about childhood head injury and background issues. Two mental health experts testified: Dr. Phillips, a psychiatrist from Connecticut, and Dr. Lyman, a psychologist from Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Dr. Lyman testified about neurological functioning and mental state at the time of the crime and concluded that Horsley acted under the substantial domination of Brian Baldwin and that Horsley’s capacity to conform behavior to the requirements of the law or to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct was substantially impaired. On cross-examination, Dr. Lyman stated that he did not think a causal connection could be established between Horsley's impairment and the murder, at least not definitively.

Dr. Phillips testified that Horsley had an average IQ and described factors affecting judgment including possible fetal exposure to alcohol, a dysfunctional family, head injury, organic personality disorder, and constant abuse of drugs and alcohol. Dr. Phillips stated that Horsley’s participation was “half-hearted” but “clearly participatory” and stated that Horsley’s choice was not “totally free and not totally volitional.” Under cross-examination, Dr. Phillips admitted that none of the factors described were causally related to the murder.

The district court found Horsley failed to satisfy the prejudice element of the Strickland test, including a finding that Horsley presented no evidence that it was reasonably probable that experts such as those who testified at the federal evidentiary hearing were available at the time of the 1977 trial.

Outcome

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Horsley’s habeas petition.

Aftermath

Horsley was executed by electrocution in Alabama on February 16, 1996. His execution had been delayed by claims that his trial had been unfair because the jury had been composed entirely of whites.

As Baldwin’s appeals were exhausted after additional exculpatory evidence developed, Horsley wrote a statement in 1994 asserting that he alone had killed Rolon and that Baldwin had been unaware that Rolon was dead at the time of their arrest.

Additional exculpatory evidence developed as Baldwin’s execution approached, including a video-taped deposition with former Wilcox County deputy sheriff Nathaniel Manzie, who stated that Baldwin was beaten during interrogation and that a cattle prod was present in the jail at the time, although Manzie did not see it used on Baldwin. Manzie admitted signing a statement falsely stating that Baldwin had waived his right to counsel. Forensic evidence obtained indicated that Rolon’s wounds had been inflicted by a left-handed person. Despite last-minute pleas from, among others, former President Jimmy Carter, Coretta Scott King, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Alabama allowed Baldwin’s execution to proceed on June 18, 1999. Witnesses said Baldwin’s last words were inaudible.