HULL, Circuit Judge:

Carl Puiatti, a Florida inmate under a death sentence, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenged his convictions and death sentence. The district court denied the petition as to Puiatti's convictions but vacated Puiatti's death sentence. The district court concluded that the state trial court's denial of Puiatti's motion to sever his penalty phase from his co-defendant's violated Puiatti's constitutional right to an individualized determination of sentence. The State appealed. After review and oral argument, we reverse and remand this case with directions to consider Puiatti's remaining § 2254 claims as to his death sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

A. 1983 Crime and Confessions

On August 16, 1983, Puiatti and Robert Glock kidnapped, robbed, and murdered Sharilyn Ritchie. Puiatti (age 20) and Glock (age 22) confronted Ritchie as she got out of her car in the parking lot of a shopping mall in Bradenton, Florida. Glock pulled out a .38 pistol and forced Ritchie into the backseat of her car at gunpoint. Puiatti and Glock got in Ritchie's car, Glock took $50 from Ritchie's purse, and Puiatti drove them to Ritchie's bank, where they made Ritchie cash a $100 check. Then Puiatti drove Ritchie more than 60 miles, to an orange grove outside Dade City, Florida. Puiatti took Ritchie's wedding ring and left her at the roadside.

After driving away for a short distance, Glock said he thought they should kill Ritchie, and Puiatti agreed. Puiatti turned the car around, and when the car pulled abreast of Ritchie, Puiatti shot her twice from inside the car. Puiatti began to drive away, but when Glock saw Ritchie was still standing, Puiatti handed the gun to Glock, turned the car around, and drove by Ritchie again. Glock shot Ritchie. When Ritchie still did not fall, Puiatti made a third pass and Glock shot Ritchie again. Ritchie collapsed and died from her injuries.

Four days later, on August 20, 1983, Puiatti and Glock were in Ritchie's car in New Jersey, with Glock driving. A state trooper stopped them because Ritchie's license plate was improperly displayed. Neither Puiatti nor Glock had a valid driver's license. When Puiatti opened the glove compartment to find the car's registration, the state trooper saw a handgun that was later identified as the gun used to kill Ritchie. The state trooper searched the car and found another handgun. He arrested Puiatti and Glock for possessing handguns without a permit. After Puiatti and Glock were taken to the police station, police officers discovered that the car they were driving was stolen and its owner had been murdered.

The New Jersey State Police assigned Detective John Quinlan to interview Puiatti and Glock. On the evening of August 20, Detective Quinlan questioned Puiatti and Glock for about 15 minutes each, at which time Glock admitted he had stolen the car. On the evening of the next day, August 21, 1983, Detective Quinlan, along with Florida detectives August Stahl and James Wiggins, questioned the defendants again. The detectives questioned Puiatti and Glock separately, for about an hour each. Puiatti, who was interviewed after Glock, initially claimed Glock picked him up in Ritchie's car to give him a ride to New York and that Puiatti knew nothing about the theft of the car or Ritchie's death. After the detectives told Puiatti that Glock already gave a statement about Ritchie's murder, Puiatti said, "I might as well tell you," and gave a statement about the murder.

Puiatti's and Glock's individual confessions, which they gave initially, differed from each other in only two ways: (1) although Puiatti and Glock each confessed to shooting Ritchie, they differed on who fired which shots at her; and (2) they each claimed the other man instigated the killing.

Puiatti and Glock were extradited to Florida. On August 24, 1983, Detective Stahl asked Puiatti and Glock if they would give a joint statement confessing to their involvement in Ritchie's murder, and they agreed. Puiatti and Glock's joint confession resolved the inconsistencies in their individual confessions. Their joint confession stated that Glock had suggested shooting Ritchie, Puiatti fired the two shots on the first pass, and Glock fired the shots on the second and third passes.

B. Denial of Motions to Sever

Before trial, Puiatti moved to sever his trial from Glock's, arguing a joint trial was prejudicial. Puiatti alleged that material differences existed between Puiatti's and Glock's individual confessions and that a joint trial interfered substantially with the jury's ability to make an impartial decision as to Puiatti's guilt or innocence and its recommendation of a life or death sentence. Puiatti focused on the defendants' individual confessions and likely antagonistic defenses. Puiatti argued that failure to sever violated the Florida Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The state trial court denied Puiatti's motion to sever.1 The state trial court considered the effect of any differences in the defendants' individual confessions on the penalty phase and concluded any difference was clarified in their joint confession.

C. 1984 Guilt Phase

Puiatti's and Glock's trial began March 19, 1984. The State called witnesses to testify about, among other things, the discovery of Ritchie's body, the ensuing police investigation, the extent of Ritchie's injuries, the cause of her death, and the New Jersey traffic stop that led to Puiatti and Glock's arrests. Detectives from New Jersey and Florida testified that Puiatti and Glock made individual tape-recorded statements to police, confessing their involvement in Ritchie's murder. The State played for the jury the tape-recorded individual confessions of Glock and Puiatti. The state trial court instructed the jury not to consider Glock's individual confession as evidence against Puiatti, and vice versa.

The State's last witness was the court reporter who recorded and transcribed Glock and Puiatti's August 24, 1983 joint confession. The court reporter testified the transcript accurately reflected the defendants' statements and then read the joint confession transcript into the record.

Puiatti's counsel renewed his motion to sever, which the state trial court denied. The joint confession was read in open court.

In the joint confession, Puiatti and Glock acknowledged and waived their Miranda rights.2 Detective Stahl asked Puiatti to describe the incident:

Puiatti began, describing how he and Glock kidnapped and robbed Ritchie:

Puiatti said that he drove the car northbound until he found a dirt road through orange groves near Dade City, Florida. Puiatti drove the car through the dirt road until he saw a street, then turned around and stopped the car about halfway down the dirt road. Puiatti said they let Ritchie out of the car and, at her request, gave Ritchie her purse and her husband's baseball glove. They took her wedding band and diamond ring.

Puiatti and Glock jointly described how Glock suggested shooting Ritchie, how Puiatti fired the first two shots, and then Glock fired the rest, as follows:

(Emphasis added).

Afterward, Puiatti said they drove to Ocala, Florida, where they pawned Ritchie's rings for $200, drank beer and played pool. Puiatti and Glock drove to Columbia, South Carolina, where they visited Glock's sister and a friend of Glock's, and then they went fishing. Glock pawned the CB radio from Ritchie's car for $20. They drove north until they were stopped and arrested on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Puiatti and Glock identified several pieces of physical evidence collected by police: the hundred-dollar check, Ritchie's purse, pawn tickets, the murder weapon (the .38 pistol) and the other firearm recovered from Ritchie's car. Puiatti and Glock were asked if they had anything else to say, and they averred that their crimes occurred as they described them and they were in full agreement with each other's statements:

(Emphasis added.)

After presenting the court reporter's testimony reading the defendants' joint confession, the State introduced into evidence two checks, Ritchie's two rings, and the vehicle registration for Ritchie's car. Then the State rested.

Neither Puiatti nor Glock presented evidence. In their closing arguments, they did not contest guilt on the kidnaping and robbery charges, but argued the evidence merited a conviction for second-degree murder, not first-degree murder.

The jury's verdict found Puiatti and Glock guilty of first-degree murder, kidnaping, and robbery with a firearm. The State presented no evidence in the penalty phase.3

D. Glock's Penalty Phase Evidence

Glock first called Dr. Gerald Mussenden, a clinical psychologist, who examined Glock in jail. Dr. Mussenden testified Glock was reading at a ninth-grade level, had impressive spelling and relatively strong math skills, and was "functioning at his level of intelligence." Dr. Mussenden did not state what Glock's IQ was, but he testified that Glock was "in the average range of intelligence." Dr. Mussenden testified that Glock: (1) had "moderate personality skills implying that he had some adequate control and inhibitions"; (2) had "some ability to relate to people in a friendly, sociable manner" and was "fairly objective in what he perceives"; (3) was "sensitive to others" and "certainly likes to receive some kind of affection"; (4) had "good feelings for guilt or remorse and does experience conflicts of his behavior"; (5) had "a strong desire to relate to people" and (6) would have liked, in the past and the present, to "have a better relationship with his family and with others." Dr. Mussenden found these difficulties in Glock's personality, including that he: (1) had "difficulty relating to authority, whether it's male or female"; (2) had "a problem relating to women" in general; (3) had "a very poor self-concept, extremely sensitive to his height or shortness"; (4) felt "very bad about who he is[,] ... what he's not done to date[, and] ... like a failure"; (5) had "some self-destructive tendencies" that he "turns ... on himself" when he is angry and (6) was "also ... somewhat easily led," and "somewhat easily influenced by someone who would want to be friendly and create an atmosphere where he could feel comfortable."

Dr. Mussenden also opined that at the time of Ritchie's murder, Glock was "cogn[i]tive," "knew right from wrong," "could appreciate the quality of his behavior," and had reached a "culmination of a history of problems" Glock had had for years. Dr. Mussenden described Glock's background problems: (1) his father left when he was two years old; (2) Glock was "extremely disruptive," which Dr. Mussenden attributed to poor parenting; (3) at the age of 13, Glock was sent to live in an institution, which Dr. Mussenden described as "the ultimate rejection ... for any child to experience"; (4) Glock was sent to live with his father at age 14, which did not work out well, causing additional feelings of failure; (5) Glock later joined the military, but again had problems; and (6) Glock left the military and worked a variety of jobs that "didn't work out very well." At that point, at age 22, Glock "no longer had a job, had bills, [and] couldn't go home to his father, to his stepmother." Glock met Puiatti and they developed a comradeship in part because Puiatti "would pay attention to him, ... was willing to give him some support, and ... understood the problem." Glock "could identify with Puiatti because [Puiatti] was also without a job and [had] no place to go."

According to Dr. Mussenden, the murder of Ritchie was an expression of Glock's anger toward women and Glock's feelings of failure and rejection all his life. Dr. Mussenden added that murder was not something Glock normally would have thought of or done. According to Dr. Mussenden, although Glock had a high level of family discord, he showed few or no signs of sexual deviancy, antisocial personality, or impulsiveness. Glock "basically doesn't have a criminal profile." Dr. Mussenden opined that Glock had a very good potential for rehabilitation because he was young, fairly intelligent, had feelings of guilt and conflict about his behavior, and was not as prone to destructiveness toward others as he was to selfdestructiveness.

During the State's cross-examination, Dr. Mussenden testified that Glock had problems relating to female authority figures, which made him more likely to choose a female victim for a crime. Dr. Mussenden stated that Glock "would follow anyone who appears to be fairly assertive and will give him a minimal amount of attention," and "[s]hould this person be involved in any type of anti-social behavior, [Glock] may be a quick subject to follow," though "[i]t would depend on the act itself." Dr. Mussenden testified that Puiatti "gave [Glock] the type of things he was craving for." When asked whether it was fair to say Glock and Puiatti each gave the other something the other needed, Dr. Mussenden stated he would "imagine that if [Puiatti] also had similar needs or anything similar to that, then, yeah, they may have been able to support each other and felt very comfortable with each other because of their deficiencies." Dr. Mussenden admitted there was "a contradiction" between the facts of Glock's and Puiatti's abduction and murder of Ritchie and Dr. Mussenden's conclusion that Glock was not destructive to others. Dr. Mussenden stated that he thought "a possible explanation, the only explanation I have[,] is that had [Glock] not had this association that he made on the date of this crime, he would not have been involved in this incident, such an act. This is a really bad, destructive association."

On cross-examination by Puiatti's counsel, Dr. Mussenden was asked if his findings were consistent with the fact that it was Mr. Glock's idea to shoot Ritchie.4 Dr. Mussenden answered that it would be atypical behavior for Glock, and Dr. Mussenden still believed Glock "would need someone else to do something of this nature." However, Dr. Mussenden admitted his conclusions did not negate the possibility that it was Glock's idea to commit the crime, or that it was Glock who fired the final shot at Ritchie.

Glock called his stepmother, Willie Mae Glock. Mrs. Glock testified about how she and Glock's father (her husband) found Glock in an orphanage when he was fourteen and got legal custody of him. Mrs. Glock testified that she talked to Glock while he was in jail awaiting trial for Ritchie's murder, and that Glock was "[v]ery depressed," "sorry that it happened," and "mostly fe[lt] sorry for the family that it happened to." Mrs. Glock did not believe Glock "intentionally [did] it" because it was "not [Glock's] nature." Glock was more of a follower than a leader.

On the State's cross-examination, Mrs. Glock admitted that Glock had a problem with anyone telling him what to do because he "never had anyone to discipline [him] or teach him right from wrong." Glock "has had to survive any way he could ever since he was eight years old. He had no mother or father. He's had to survive the best way he knew how." Puiatti had no questions for Mrs. Glock.

Glock called Tammy Yonce, Glock's sister, to testify. Yonce testified that her and Glock's mother was "a committed alcoholic" who physically and mentally abused Glock and Yonce until a court removed Glock from the home and put him in an orphanage when he was about thirteen years old. Their mother beat Glock almost daily for minor infractions, called him names, "did not approve of who he was" and "did not like him because of who his father was." Glock's mother later disowned him.

Yonce also testified that Glock told her several times that he was sorry for killing Ritchie, that he wished he had not killed her, and that he did not intentionally do it. Yonce characterized Glock as more of a follower than a leader.

Glock's counsel then called Glock to testify.5 Glock testified that he felt "a lot of remorse and more or less sorrow" for "the victim and her husband." Glock was 22 years old and had never been convicted of a crime before. Glock had a "very hectic" relationship with his mother and he "never really had a relationship" with his father, although there were "good feelings between us." Glock had had no disciplinary problems while in jail. Glock was "sorry about what happened. If there was anything I could do to bring her back, I would do it."

Neither the State nor Puiatti's counsel cross-examined Glock. Glock then rested.

E. Puiatti's Penalty Phase Evidence

Puiatti's first witness was Dr. Donald DelBeato, a forensic psychologist, who examined Puiatti. Dr. DelBeato felt comfortable enough with Puiatti during the examination that he removed Puiatti's manacles and asked the accompanying deputy to leave them alone in the room together. In the interview, Puiatti "tended to underplay" his drug usage, but Dr. DelBeato learned from the interview and other information that Puiatti had used marijuana regularly for several years and also used LSD and some cocaine. In his personality profile and clinical interview, Puiatti was, in Dr. DelBeato's opinion, being truthful.

Dr. DelBeato opined that Puiatti was "a rather insecure young man" with "an inability to sometimes deal with stress and react appropriate[ly]." Dr. DelBeato found no antisocial tendencies. Puiatti was remorseful for Ritchie's murder. Puiatti scored a 95 verbal IQ and a 78 performance IQ. Dr. DelBeato testified that "if we were in school and the teacher wanted to know what [Puiatti's] IQ is, I would say he would probably be average."

Although Puiatti's remote and recent memory were normal, Dr. DelBeato found there was "a dysfunction to the right hemisphere of [Puiatti's] brain," in the frontal or frontal parietal area which is the emotional center of the brain. Puiatti had impairments in concentration and patience. Puiatti had "emotional instability syndrome," which "could make him edgy, moody, and not know why or [be] easily influenced."

According to Dr. DelBeato, Puiatti's dysfunction expresses itself when Puiatti is under stress or under the influence of alcohol or some other toxin. As a result of his brain dysfunction, Puiatti is "[v]ery easily manipulated." Puiatti is "more easily aggressive, more easily violent, more easily influenced, edgy, ... may do something that [he] ordinarily would not have done, to make unusual choices." Dr. DelBeato opined that at the time of Ritchie's murder, Puiatti was under stress, and as a result he "would have been more easily dominated by another individual" and "more likely to do something that he would not normally do or that he would not do if he were alone."

On cross-examination by Glock's counsel, Dr. DelBeato admitted that (1) most people are more easily influenced when they are under stress, (2) whether Puiatti was influenced by Glock depends not only on Puiatti's psychological profile, but also on Glock's, and (3) Dr. DelBeato never examined Glock.

On the State's cross-examination, Dr. DelBeato clarified that his opinion was that there was "a very good probability" that Puiatti's right-side brain dysfunction affected his behavior during his kidnaping and murder of Ritchie. Dr. DelBeato could not say with certainty that that was the case because in his profession, "there are no certainties." Dr. DelBeato also could not say with certainty that Puiatti was under extreme duress or the substantial domination of another person, but only that Dr. DelBeato's diagnosis was that Puiatti "could have been easily influenced." Dr. DelBeato testified that Puiatti's conduct as to Ritchie would likely not have been the same had Puiatti been by himself. Dr. DelBeato opined that Puiatti could appreciate the criminality of his conduct, but was, within a reasonable probability, substantially impaired in his ability to conform his actions to the requirements of the law "because of the way the damage that is there [in Puiatti's brain] affects aggressiveness."

Puiatti called his mother, Linda Puiatti. Mrs. Puiatti testified about Puiatti's childhood in New York and how Puiatti befriended other children who were picked on by other kids, how he started working in the family's deli business after school when he was 12, until the family had financial troubles and lost the business. At age 16, Puiatti started "hanging around with the wrong crowd" and using drugs. Puiatti's family got Puiatti to see a counselor about his problems, but eventually they could not afford the cost.

The Puiatti family moved to Florida to get a new start. Puiatti quit school when he was 16. When his mother tried to get him to go back, Puiatti told her the family needed him to get a job more. Puiatti later joined the Army to better himself. Puiatti had trouble keeping up in the coursework he had in the Army, and he continued to use drugs. Puiatti requested and received an honorable discharge from the Army. He returned home and found a job, where he met his future wife.

After Puiatti, at age 19, married, his relationship with his wife was one "of constant fighting." In all Puiatti's arguments with his wife, he never struck her. Puiatti had financial trouble and for a time had to move, with his wife and her daughter, to live with Puiatti's parents. Later Puiatti was arrested for helping a friend commit a burglary. While Puiatti was on probation, Mrs. Puiatti tried to get him help for his continuing drug problem.

Puiatti and his wife had a baby boy who was born two months premature and who died after two months. By the time the child was born, Puiatti's wife had met another man, and she would not let Puiatti see their son. Puiatti never saw his child in person, though he got a photograph that he carried with him.

Puiatti became very troubled after the death of his baby son. Puiatti also suffered constant chronic chest pain. Puiatti's teeth hurt, too, but he could not afford to see a dentist. Puiatti continued with his drug use and lacked motivation to do anything with his life. Puiatti moved in with his parents and could not find a job.

Mrs. Puiatti testified that up until the time Puiatti was arrested for Ritchie's murder, he was not violent. Instead, Puiatti "demonstrated a lot of love to us, a lot of caring, a lot of helping, trying to help us through our difficult financial time."

Puiatti's next witness was his sister, Angela Thatcher, who became aware that Puiatti was using drugs when he was about 14 or 15 years old. Puiatti became very moody and "very obnoxious at times." While growing up, Puiatti tended to befriend misfits. Puiatti was never violent. Although Thatcher and Puiatti "argued as brother and sister will, ... he always verbally abused but never physically—he never struck out or hit anybody in our family or anyone else to my knowledge."

Over the past few years, Puiatti became depressed, but in the last year before his arrest he "was starting to make a new start for himself." Puiatti "was really into working as a chef." Puiatti told Thatcher he was "trying to lead the more or less straight and narrow path and not get into any more trouble." Thatcher "found it hard to believe and, yet, I tried to believe it, because I wanted to hope that he would change and that he would get his life together and get on the right track." Puiatti "was very depressed over the death of his son and ... felt very tormented that he had never seen the child."

Puiatti called his father, Victor Puiatti, as a witness. Victor Puiatti testified that in the months before the murder, Puiatti was under a lot of pressure from his probation officer to pay back an outstanding fine:

Puiatti was doing his best to pay the fine on time, but he had trouble getting to work because he lost his driver's license after he got a series of tickets.

In the months before the murder, Puiatti was also very depressed. After his son died, Puiatti was increasingly depressed and stayed in his room most of the time. Puiatti said he should be dead with his son. One time during that period, Victor Puiatti got angry at Puiatti for his negative attitude, raised his voice at Puiatti, and shoved him. Puiatti did not strike out, instead telling his father that if it would make him feel better to hit Puiatti, to go ahead and hit him. Victor Puiatti spoke to Puiatti after Ritchie's murder, and his son was truly remorseful for what happened.

Puiatti's final penalty-phase witness was psychiatrist Dr. Richard Meadows. Dr. Meadows examined Puiatti, spoke to Puiatti's family members, reviewed Dr. DelBeato's findings, and reviewed materials from the case, including Puiatti's confessions. Dr. Meadows performed a mental status examination on Puiatti and spoke with Puiatti about his mental condition, legal circumstances, background, and psychiatric and medical history. Dr. Meadows found Puiatti truthful during the evaluation.

Dr. Meadows concluded that Puiatti suffered from "several mental illnesses," including avoidance personality and addiction to alcohol and marijuana:

Dr. Meadows described avoidance personality as "an extreme sensitivity to feelings of rejection by other people" and a tendency to misinterpret other people's comments as a criticism of oneself. Dr. Meadows described people with avoidance personality as being "suggestible or influenced easily by other people":

Dr. Meadows also explained the basis for his suspicion of possible brain damage:

Dr. Meadows opined that Puiatti's right-side brain damage probably contributed to Puiatti's increasingly impaired judgment:

In Dr. Meadows's opinion, Puiatti suffered from "a progressive brain damage ... probably due to the use of pot and alcohol —more likely that than the head injuries that he had, and that played a part in it and made him ... less stable." Dr. Meadows opined that Puiatti, on an emotional level, functioned like a child of 10 or 11.

Dr. Meadows also explained what factors in Puiatti's history led to Dr. Meadows's diagnosis of avoidance personality:

Dr. Meadows opined that Puiatti's life showed a pattern of disintegration over the year or more leading up to Ritchie's murder:

Dr. Meadows testified that just prior to the crime, Puiatti was at his lowest point psychologically. For many years Puiatti had used marijuana and alcohol heavily. Then Puiatti went three or four days without any marijuana, which could cause "an intense psychological withdrawal experience that's very unsettling to some people."

Dr. Meadows testified that Puiatti's personality profile was not one of a violent person. Dr. Meadows explained:

Dr. Meadows further opined that Puiatti had "a number of things going for him on the plus side that would argue in favor of rehabilitation." Dr. Meadows believed Puiatti (1) felt genuine remorse at what he'd done and (2) would be able to function and improve himself within the structured confines of the prison system.

Dr. Meadows also believed Puiatti was easily influenced and under the substantial domination of another person at the time of Ritchie's murder:

Dr. Meadows characterized Puiatti's mental state at the time of the crime as "substantially impaired":

Glock's counsel then briefly cross-examined Dr. Meadows, asking only three questions. Dr. Meadows admitted that whether Puiatti was under the substantial domination of another person at the time of the crimes might depend on the psychological profile of the other person. Dr. Meadows had not performed any tests on Glock or seen any psychological testing reports on Glock.

At the close of evidence, Puiatti renewed his motion to sever, which the state trial court denied, stating:

F. Penalty Phase Arguments and Verdicts

In the penalty phase closing arguments, the State discussed the testimony of the three mental health experts retained by the defendants, and agreed defendants Puiatti and Glock were both followers, not leaders:

Glock's counsel argued, among other things, that Glock committed the crime while under extreme duress. Glock's counsel did not argue Puiatti dominated Glock. Rather, Glock's counsel rested his closing argument on the duress prong of the statutory mitigating factor in Fla. Stat. § 921.141(6)(e),6 not the domination prong:

Glock's counsel also argued that Glock's criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to reoccur. Glock's counsel stated that "this whole thing was brought about to a great degree by the bad, destructive association between these two personalities. It's just something that occurred. It's wrong, it doesn't justify it, but it's not likely to occur again."

In closing, Puiatti's own counsel argued that neither Puiatti nor Glock would have committed the murder without the other:

Puiatti's counsel referenced Dr. DelBeato's testimony that Puiatti showed a "flat affect" —that he felt strong emotions but did not show them outwardly—and that Dr. DelBeato and Dr. Meadows testified that Puiatti was being truthful and was remorseful. Puiatti's counsel then stated that "[t]his is more dependable than any display of emotion that Carl [Puiatti] might put on to you on the witness stand, although we know from the doctor's testimony that he's not capable of that kind of show."

Puiatti's counsel further argued that Puiatti was under an extreme emotional disturbance and extreme duress at the time of the murder. His counsel argued Puiatti was not "absolutely responsible because half of his brain is functioning in an impaired way and because of the extreme disturbance that he was under personally." Puiatti's counsel did not argue Puiatti was substantially dominated by Glock.

By an 11 to 1 vote, the jury recommended the death penalty for Puiatti. By an 11 to 1 vote, the jury recommended the death penalty for Glock, who was executed in 2001.

G. 1984 Sentencing Hearing

On May 4, 1984, the state trial court held a joint sentencing hearing for Puiatti and Glock. Puiatti called three witnesses. Chuck Norman, Puiatti's first witness, was a volunteer who conducts weekly group discussions on alcoholism and drug abuse in the jail. Puiatti voluntarily attended every meeting except for one when he had the flu. Over the course of eight months, Norman noticed a "definite change" in Puiatti. Puiatti began to open up about his own history of drug and alcohol abuse, and doing so had an effect on the other inmates and on Norman himself.

Puiatti's other witnesses were Dr. DelBeato and Dr. Meadows. Both experts reiterated their penalty-phase testimony. For example, Dr. DelBeato again opined that Puiatti had right-brain dysfunction that was highly related to stress that Puiatti was under, with the "higher the stress, the lower his ability to behave correctly." Dr. Meadows testified about Puiatti's right-brain dysfunction, which he believed was likely caused by alcohol and drug use, and about Puiatti's psychological stressors at the time of the murder. Puiatti's counsel then argued.

Puiatti himself made this statement:

(Emphasis added.) Puiatti recounted his progress with Alcoholics Anonymous and believed he could be rehabilitated in prison. Puiatti explained his remorse for the pain he had caused Ritchie's husband.

The state trial court sentenced Puiatti and Glock to death, stating:

The state trial court sentenced Puiatti and Glock to life imprisonment for their robbery and kidnaping convictions.

H. Direct Appeal

Puiatti appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, raising eight issues. See Puiatti v. State, 495 So.2d 128 (Fla.1986) ("Puiatti I"), vacated and remanded by Puiatti v. Florida, 481 U.S. 1027, 107 S.Ct. 1950, 95 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). As to his motions to sever, Puiatti argued that the state trial court abused its discretion in refusing a severance because the joint trial prejudiced Puiatti. Puiatti argued that the prejudice accrued from three primary sources: (1) antagonistic post-arrest statements; (2) inconsistent and conflicting penalty phase defenses; and (3) penalty phase jury instructions and prosecutorial comments that were relevant to Glock's case but prejudicial error as to Puiatti.

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Puiatti's convictions and death sentence. Puiatti I, 495 So.2d at 129. As to guiltphase severance, the Florida Supreme Court held that Puiatti's constitutional right to confrontation under the Confrontation Clause and Bruton8 was not violated by the introduction of Glock's individual confession implicating Puiatti because Puiatti also confessed, Puiatti's and Glock's individual confessions were interlocking, and their subsequent joint confession reconciled any minor differences in their individual confessions:

Puiatti I, 495 So.2d at 130-31 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

As to the penalty phase, the Florida Supreme Court determined severance was not required because the jury was able to consider Puiatti's penalty-phase evidence and apply the law without confusion or prejudice:

Puiatti I, 495 So.2d at 131 (brackets in original).

Puiatti petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. In a one-paragraph opinion, the Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the Florida Supreme Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the Florida Supreme Court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's Confrontation Clause decision in Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). See Puiatti v. Florida, 481 U.S. 1027, 107 S.Ct. 1950, 95 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). In Cruz, the Supreme Court concluded "that, where a nontestifying codefendant's confession incriminating the defendant is not directly admissible against the defendant, the Confrontation Clause bars its admission at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed not to consider it against the defendant, and even if the defendant's own confession is admitted against him." 481 U.S. at 193, 107 S.Ct. at 1719 (citation omitted).9 The Cruz Court stated, however, that "the defendant's confession may be considered at trial in assessing whether his codefendant's statements are supported by sufficient `indicia of reliability' to be directly admissible against [the defendant] (assuming the `unavailability' of the codefendant) despite the lack of opportunity for cross-examination, and may be considered on appeal in assessing whether any Confrontation Clause violation was harmless." Id. at 193-94, 107 S.Ct. at 1719 (citations omitted).

On remand, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Puiatti's convictions and death sentence. Puiatti v. State, 521 So.2d 1106, 1108 (Fla.1988) ("Puiatti II"). The Florida Supreme Court pointed out that Cruz did not concern a true joint confession by both defendants, that Glock and Puiatti's joint confession resolved any prior inconsistencies in their earlier individual confessions, and that Glock's individual and joint confession had the requisite indicia of reliability. Id. at 1107-08. The Florida Supreme Court reasoned:

Puiatti II, 521 So.2d at 1107-08. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that "the introduction of the individual interlocking confession of Glock and the joint confession was harmless error, even if it was error." Id. at 1107.

Puiatti again petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The United States Supreme Court denied Puiatti's petition. Puiatti v. Florida, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 184, 102 L.Ed.2d 153 (1988).

I. State Postconviction Proceedings

In 1990, Puiatti filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to vacate his convictions and death sentence, which was denied. Puiatti's Rule 3.850 motion raised five claims, including ineffective trial counsel in the guilt and penalty phases.

Puiatti appealed the denial of his 3.850 motion to the Florida Supreme Court and simultaneously filed a state habeas petition in the Florida Supreme Court. Puiatti's state habeas petition asserted he had ineffective appellate counsel who failed to argue the joint trial violated Puiatti's constitutional right to an individualized sentencing.10

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Puiatti's 3.850 motion and denied his state habeas petition. Puiatti v. Dugger, 589 So.2d 231, 232 (Fla.1991) ("Puiatti III"). The Florida Supreme Court concluded that Puiatti had not shown his appellate counsel rendered constitutionally deficient performance. Puiatti III, 589 So.2d at 235.

J. District Court Proceedings

In 1992, Puiatti filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his convictions and death sentence. Several times, Puiatti's case was administratively stayed pending the outcome of other state or federal proceedings. On August 14, 2009, the district court denied Puiatti's § 2254 claims as to his convictions but vacated his death sentence. Puiatti v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 651 F.Supp.2d 1286 (M.D.Fla.2009) ("Puiatti IV"). The district court concluded that the state trial court's refusal to sever the penalty phase violated Puiatti's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right to an "individualized sentencing determination." The district court did not decide Puiatti's other challenges to the penalty phase, but held they were moot.11 Id. at 1304. The State moved the district court to alter or amend its order vacating Puiatti's death sentence. The State argued that the district court's failure to resolve Puiatti's remaining penalty-phase issues violated this Court's directive in Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir.1992) (en banc), that district courts "resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ..., regardless whether habeas relief is granted or denied." Id. at 936. The district court denied the State's motion.

The State appealed the district court's vacatur of Puiatti's death sentence and denial of the motion to alter or amend.12 Before discussing the State's appeal, we review briefly the events in co-defendant Glock's appeals.

K. Glock's Appeals and Postconviction Proceedings

As Puiatti was pursuing his appeals and postconviction proceedings, his co-defendant Glock was doing the same. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court consolidated Glock's appeal with Puiatti's. Glock claimed, among other things, that the state trial court erred in refusing to sever Puiatti's and Glock's penalty phase trial. The Florida Supreme Court denied Glock's claims challenging his death sentence— including his penalty-phase severance claims—for the same reasons it denied Puiatti's. Puiatti I, 495 So.2d at 132.

Glock filed a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which the Florida trial court denied in 1988. Glock appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and filed in the Florida Supreme Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Glock's Rule 3.850 motion and denied his state habeas petition. Glock v. Dugger, 537 So.2d 99 (Fla.1989) ("Glock I").

In 1989, Glock filed a § 2254 petition in district court. Glock's petition claimed, inter alia, that the state trial court erred by not granting Glock a severance at the guilt and penalty phases. The district court denied Glock's § 2254 petition. Glock v. Dugger, 752 F.Supp. 1027 (M.D.Fla.1990) ("Glock II"). In doing so, the district court concluded that Glock's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by admission of Puiatti's individual confession and the joint confession, and the state trial court did not err in denying Glock's motions to sever. Id. at 1029-31.13

In 1994, a panel of this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Glock v. Singletary, 36 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir.1994) ("Glock III"). This Glock III decision was vacated on April 19, 1995. Glock v. Singletary, 51 F.3d 942 (11th Cir.1995) (en banc). This Court en banc concluded that (1) Glock was not entitled to relief on his Confrontation Clause claim on the merits, and (2) the non-retroactivity principle of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) precluded relief on Glock's HAC jury instruction claim. Glock v. Singletary, 65 F.3d 878, 880 (11th Cir.1995) (en banc) ("Glock IV"). The en banc Court remanded the case to the panel to consider Glock's remaining challenges to his death sentence. Id.

On remand, the Glock panel considered those claims, which included Glock's claim "that his [death] sentence should be set aside because ... the [state] trial court refused to sever [Glock's] sentencing proceeding from his co-defendant's, thereby depriving him of individualized sentencing." Glock v. Singletary, 84 F.3d 385, 385 (11th Cir.1996) ("Glock V"). The Glock V panel summarily affirmed the district court's denial of Glock's penalty-phase severance claim, stating, "We find no merit in [this] ... claim[ ] and therefore affirm the district court's denial of relief thereon." Id. at 386. But the Glock V panel remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Glock's ineffective trial counsel claim. Id. The United States Supreme Court denied Glock's petitions for certiorari. Glock v. Singletary, 519 U.S. 888, 117 S.Ct. 225, 136 L.Ed.2d 157 (1996); Glock v. Singletary, 519 U.S. 1044, 117 S.Ct. 616, 136 L.Ed.2d 540 (1996).

The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Glock's ineffective assistance claim and again denied the claim. This Court affirmed. Glock v. Moore, 195 F.3d 625 (11th Cir.1999) ("Glock VI"). The United States Supreme Court denied Glock's certiorari petition. Glock v. Moore, 531 U.S. 890, 121 S.Ct. 213, 148 L.Ed.2d 150 (2000).

After the Florida governor signed Glock's death warrant, Glock filed a successive Rule 3.850 motion, which was denied in 2000. Glock appealed and filed a successive state habeas petition in the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Glock's successive 3.850 motion and denied Glock's successive habeas petition. Glock v. Moore, 776 So.2d 243 (Fla.2001) ("Glock VII"). The United States Supreme Court denied Glock's certiorari petition and his application for a stay of execution. Glock v. Florida, 531 U.S. 1107, 121 S.Ct. 848, 148 L.Ed.2d 733. Glock was executed in 2001.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because Puiatti filed his § 2254 petition before the April 24, 1996 effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), we review his claims under pre-AEDPA law. Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1273 (11th Cir. 2003). "Pre-AEDPA, questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact resolved by state habeas courts are reviewed de novo, while the state courts' factual findings are subject to [a] presumption of correctness." Jefferson v. Hall, 570 F.3d 1283, 1300 (11th Cir.2009), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Jefferson v. Upton, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2217, 176 L.Ed.2d 1032 (2010) (quotation marks omitted). We review de novo the district court's grant of Puiatti's § 2254 petition. Turner, 339 F.3d at 1273. Any factual findings made by the district court are reviewed for clear error, but its legal conclusions and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo. Id.

III. CLISBY ERROR

In Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir.1992) (en banc), this Court, exercising its supervisory power over the district courts in this circuit, instructed them "to resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ..., regardless [of] whether habeas relief is granted or denied." Here, the district court expressly declined to reach the merits of Puiatti's penalty-phase claims other than his severance claim. The district court attempted to distinguish Clisby by reasoning that (1) the district court did not "`reserve' judgment" on Puiatti's other penalty-phase claims, as the district court had in Clisby, but "actually rendered [them] moot"; and (2) the district court in Clisby already had held an evidentiary hearing, but here the district court had not, and so Clisby's judicial economy concerns were supported by declining to reach the merits of Puiatti's penalty-phase claims.

The district court's reasoning and its resulting decision are contrary to the dictates of Clisby. Clisby's instruction to district courts was clear and contained no limitation or exception based on why a district court left some claims unresolved. In fact, in two of the five published decisions cited by the Clisby Court as examples of "the growing number of cases in which we are forced to remand for consideration of issues the district court chose not to resolve," the unresolved claims were mooted by the district court's grant of the writ as to one or more claims. See Clisby, 960 F.2d at 935-36 (citing, inter alia, Wilson v. Kemp, 777 F.2d 621 (11th Cir.1985); Blake v. Kemp, 758 F.2d 523 (11th Cir. 1985)); Wilson, 777 F.2d at 622 (district court denied all claims as to guilt phase, granted habeas relief as to sentence based on prosecutorial-comment claim, and declined to reach other claims as to sentencing phase); Blake v. Zant, 737 F.2d 925, 926 (11th Cir. 1984) (district court granted writ based on claims of ineffective assistance at guilt and penalty phases and did not decide other claims), opinion vacated by Blake v. Kemp, 758 F.2d at 523.

Further, Clisby's instruction to district courts does not turn on whether an evidentiary hearing may be required. Instead, Clisby focused on concerns of "piecemeal litigation," the "important interests of comity and finality implicated in federal habeas review of state convictions and sentences," and "the disruptive effect federal habeas review has on a state's criminal justice system" until all federal habeas claims are resolved. Clisby, 960 F.2d at 935. Such policy considerations "clearly favor the contemporaneous consideration of allegations of constitutional violations grounded in the same factual basis," id. at 936, and that is true regardless of whether an evidentiary hearing in district court may be required on some, but not all, claims.

Thus, the district court erred in refusing to address the merits of all of Puiatti's claims. Nevertheless, in the interest of avoiding further delay in a case that has already lingered far too long (Puiatti filed his federal habeas petition over eighteen years ago), we elect to address the State's appeal on the penalty-phase severance claim rather than vacate the district court's judgment without prejudice and remand for full resolution.14

IV. PENALTY-PHASE SEVERANCE CLAIM

Puiatti does not contend that joint penalty phases in capital cases are prohibited or are always per se unconstitutional. Rather, Puiatti argues that, under the particular circumstances of his capital case, the state trial court's denial of his severance motion violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right to an individualized sentencing determination.15 Although Puiatti's argument intertwines severance and individualized sentencing, we explain why these are separate and different concepts. We start with established federal principles about joinder and severance, next review Puiatti's constitutional right to an individualized sentencing determination, and then analyze Puiatti's claims about his joint penalty trial. Joinder and severance first.16

A. Joinder and Severance

"Joint trials play a vital role in the criminal justice system." Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537, 113 S.Ct. 933, 937, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993) (quotation marks omitted); Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 209, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1708, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987). The general rule or preference is that defendants indicted together should be tried together. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 537-38, 113 S.Ct. at 937; United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1236 (11th Cir.2005). "Joint trials generally serve the interests of justice by avoiding inconsistent verdicts and enabling more accurate assessment of relative culpability—advantages which sometimes operate to the defendant's benefit." Richardson, 481 U.S. at 210, 107 S.Ct. at 1708-09. The Supreme Court has admonished that "[i]t would impair both the efficiency and the fairness of the criminal justice system to require ... that prosecutors bring separate proceedings, presenting the same evidence again and again, requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience (and sometimes trauma) of testifying, and randomly favoring the last-tried defendants who have the advantage of knowing the prosecution's case beforehand." Id. Joint trials have long been a common and preferred procedure in both federal and state courts.

Although these Supreme Court cases involve the guilt or innocence issue, the same considerations—serving justice, avoiding inconsistent verdicts, enabling more accurate assessments of relative culpability, fairness, and efficiency—that militate in favor of joinder of co-defendants' trials in the guilt phase also favor joint penalty trials. See United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 892 (4th Cir.1996). Accordingly, co-defendants charged with capital murder have been jointly tried not only in Florida but also under federal statutes for both the guilt and penalty phases. See United States v. Bernard, 299 F.3d 467, 475 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407 (5th Cir.1999); Tipton, 90 F.3d 861.17

Nonetheless, trial courts have discretion to grant a severance if a defendant carries his burden to show both that (1) a joint trial would actually prejudice the defendant and (2) a severance is the proper remedy for the prejudice, rather than jury instructions or another remedy. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539-41, 113 S.Ct. at 938-39; United States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1268-69 (11th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Blankenship, 382 F.3d 1110, 1122 (11th Cir.2004) (noting that in Zafiro, "the Supreme Court set down a two-step test for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial due to a district court's refusal to sever").18

As to the first Zafiro step, a defendant "must carry the heavy burden of demonstrating the lack of a fair trial due to actual, compelling prejudice." United States v. Chavez, 584 F.3d 1354, 1360 (11th Cir.2009), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 436, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, 79 U.S.L.W. 3245, 2010 WL 3646192 (2010); see United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1365 (11th Cir.2009) ("We will not reverse the denial of a severance motion absent a clear abuse of discretion resulting in compelling prejudice against which the district court could offer no protection." (quoting United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 385 (11th Cir.1993))), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1562, 176 L.Ed.2d 146 (2010); United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 989 (11th Cir.2001) (stating a defendant must discharge the "`heavy burden' of demonstrating `compelling prejudice' from the denial of a motion to sever" (quoting United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 650-51 (11th Cir.1984))). In Zafiro, the Supreme Court explained that "[m]utually antagonistic defenses are not prejudicial per se."19 Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 538, 113 S.Ct. at 938; see Blankenship, 382 F.3d at 1122 (stating Zafiro "specifically rejected the notion that defendants who have contradictory defenses are inherently prejudiced"). And "it is well settled that defendants are not entitled to severance merely because they may have a better chance of acquittal in separate trials." Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540, 113 S.Ct. at 938.

As to the second Zafiro step, severance is not automatically required even if prejudice is shown. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539-40, 113 S.Ct. at 938. A court's limiting instruction to the jury will often cure any prejudice resulting from a joint trial. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539, 113 S.Ct. at 938. Zafiro teaches that a district court should grant severance "only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." Id. Under Zafiro, there are only two circumstances in which severance is mandatory: where there is a serious risk that a joint trial (1) "would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants," or (2) would "prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." United States v. Thompson, 422 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539, 113 S.Ct. at 938); Browne, 505 F.3d at 1269; Blankenship, 382 F.3d at 1122-23.20 "Aside from the two categories of defendants specified by the Supreme Court, most other defendants prejudiced by a joint trial are entitled only to curative instructions." Blankenship, 382 F.3d at 1123 (discussing "the two-step test" in Zafiro).

The decision whether to grant a severance lies within the trial court's sound or substantial discretion. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 538-39, 113 S.Ct. at 938; Chavez, 584 F.3d at 1360 ("We will not reverse the denial of a severance motion in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion."); United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1352 (11th Cir.2005) ("We will not reverse the denial of a severance motion absent a clear abuse of discretion resulting in compelling prejudice against which the district court could offer no protection." (quoting Walser, 3 F.3d at 385)). Appellate courts are generally reluctant to second-guess a trial court's decision on severance. United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1236 (11th Cir.2005); Ramirez, 426 F.3d at 1352; United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d at 989.

Before analyzing Puiatti's claims about his joint trial, we review the Supreme Court decisions establishing his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing determination because Puiatti tries to link severance with that right.

B. Puiatti's Constitutional Right to an Individualized Sentencing Determination

We start with Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), where the Supreme Court vacated a death sentence because the Ohio statute narrowly limited the type of mitigating factors the sentencer could consider.21 A Supreme Court plurality discussed "the concept of individualized sentencing," stressing "[t]he need for treating each defendant in a capital case with that degree of respect due the uniqueness of the individual." Id. at 602, 605, 98 S.Ct. at 2963, 2965. The Supreme Court plurality noted the "historical repudiation" of mandatory death sentences for certain crimes, and how "the imposition of death by public authority is so profoundly different from all other penalties." Id. at 604-05, 98 S.Ct. at 2964-65. The Supreme Court plurality concluded that in capital cases, "the fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment ... requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death." Id. at 604, 98 S.Ct. at 2964 (quoting Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 2991, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976) (plurality opinion)) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court plurality "conclude[d] that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer, in all but the rarest kind of capital case, not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death." Id. at 604, 98 S.Ct. at 2964-65 (emphasis omitted). "To meet constitutional requirements, a death penalty statute must not preclude consideration of relevant mitigating factors." Id. at 608, 98 S.Ct. at 2967. The Supreme Court held the Ohio statute invalid because it permitted consideration of only three mitigating factors.22 Id.

A few years later, a Supreme Court majority followed Lockett in Eddings v. Oklahoma, where a capital defendant presented mitigating evidence about his troubled childhood and emotional disorders, but the Oklahoma courts ruled that the sentencer could not consider that mitigating evidence. 455 U.S. 104, 105-10, 102 S.Ct. 869, 872-74, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982).23 The Oklahoma statute provided that "evidence may be presented [in sentencing] as to any mitigating circumstances or as to any of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in this act." Id. at 106, 102 S.Ct. at 872. The sentencing judge, however, stated he could not "consider the fact of this young man's violent background." Id. at 109, 102 S.Ct. at 873. The Oklahoma appellate court affirmed, effectively excluding family history as a factor excusing or mitigating the capital defendant's behavior. See id. at 109-10, 102 S.Ct. at 874 (citing Eddings v. State, 616 P.2d 1159, 1170 (Okla.Crim.App.1980)).

The Supreme Court in Eddings found "that the limitations placed by these [Oklahoma] courts upon the mitigating evidence they would consider violated the rule in Lockett." Id. at 113, 102 S.Ct. at 876. The Eddings Court described Lockett as "the product of considerable history reflecting the law's effort to develop a system of capital punishment at once consistent and principled but also humane and sensible to the uniqueness of the individual." Id. at 110, 102 S.Ct. at 874 (emphasis added). The Eddings Court reasoned that "[j]ust as the State may not by statute preclude the sentencer from considering any mitigating factor, neither may the sentencer refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence." Id. at 113-14, 102 S.Ct. at 876-77. Further, the sentencer "may determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating evidence," but "may not give it no weight by excluding such evidence from their consideration." Id. at 114-15, 102 S.Ct. at 877.

Next came the capital sentencing case of Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), overruled on other grounds by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), where the Supreme Court vacated Penry's death sentence, stating, "To provide the individualized sentencing determination required by the Eighth Amendment,... the sentencer must be allowed to consider mitigating evidence." 492 U.S. at 316, 109 S.Ct. at 2945. Texas's statute directed that the jury would decide Penry's sentence by answering three questions, called "special issues."24 The Supreme Court previously had upheld that statute, concluding that "the special issues would be interpreted broadly enough to permit the sentencer to consider all of the relevant mitigating evidence a defendant might present in imposing sentence." Id. at 315, 109 S.Ct. at 2945. Although Penry presented mitigating evidence of mental retardation, organic brain damage, and a childhood of deprivation and physical abuse, the jury was given only the three questions and was never instructed that it could consider and give effect to Penry's mitigating evidence in imposing sentence.25 Id. at 320, 322, 109 S.Ct. at 2947-48. The Penry Court stressed that "[u]nderlying Lockett and Eddings is the principle that punishment should be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal defendant." Id. at 319, 109 S.Ct. at 2947. In Lockett, Eddings, and Penry, "the constitutional defect lay in the fact that relevant mitigating evidence was placed beyond the effective reach of the sentencer." Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 366, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 2668, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993) (quoting Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 475, 113 S.Ct. 892, 902, 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993)).

Recently, the Supreme Court again examined a Texas death penalty statute in Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233, 127 S.Ct. 1654, 167 L.Ed.2d 585 (2007).26 The trial court instructed the jury to decide only two special issues: (1) whether the defendant's conduct that caused the victim's death was "committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result"; and (2) whether there was "a probability that the defendant ... would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." Id. at 238, 127 S.Ct. at 1660. The Texas statute mandated a death sentence if the jury answered yes to both special issues.27 Id. at 239, 127 S.Ct. at 1660.

Abdul-Kabir presented mitigating evidence from his mother, aunt, and mental health experts. Id. at 239-40, 127 S.Ct. at 1660-61. The trial court refused Abdul-Kabir's requested jury instructions that would have authorized a negative answer to either of the special issues based on mitigation evidence. Id. at 242, 127 S.Ct. at 1662. The jury answered "yes" to both special issues, and Abdul-Kabir was sentenced to death. Id.

The Supreme Court observed that the sentencing process is "fatally flawed" when "the jury is not permitted to give meaningful effect or a `reasoned moral response' to a defendant's mitigating evidence—because it is forbidden from doing so by statute or a judicial interpretation of a statute." Id. at 264, 127 S.Ct. at 1675. Abdul-Kabir's mitigating evidence had relevance to his moral culpability beyond the scope of the two special questions in the Texas statute, and the denial of his requested instructions "provided the jury with no vehicle for expressing its `reasoned moral response' to that evidence." Id. at 252-53, 256-57, 127 S.Ct. at 1668, 1670 (quoting Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 185, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2333, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (O'Connor, J., concurring)). "[S]entencing juries must be able to give meaningful consideration and effect to all mitigating evidence that might provide a basis for refusing to impose the death penalty on a particular individual." Id. at 246, 127 S.Ct. at 1664.

In summary, Lockett and its progeny establish that Puiatti has a constitutional right under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments not only (1) to present any relevant mitigating evidence as to his unique, individual background, character, and record and the circumstances of his crime, but also (2) to have the sentencing jury or judge give meaningful consideration and effect to his mitigation evidence without such restrictions by state statute, judicial interpretation, or jury instructions.28 Abdul-Kabir, 550 U.S. at 264-65, 127 S.Ct. at 1675; Eddings, 455 U.S. at 112-15, 102 S.Ct. at 875-77; Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604-05, 98 S.Ct. at 2964-65.

The core substantive ingredient in the constitutional right to an "individualized sentencing" is mitigation evidence relevant to the capital defendant as an individual or unique person (whether his background, character, mental health record, or circumstances of his crime), which a jury may consider to assess personal moral culpability and to determine an individualized sentence. None of these Supreme Court cases mentions joinder or severance. The constitutional right involved is not based on, or tied to, a separate trial. Rather, the constitutional right stems from the need for a presentation of, and consideration of, mitigation evidence relevant to the defendant as a unique individual. With this background, we turn to Puiatti's claims about his joint trial.

C. Puiatti's Claims on Appeal

As noted earlier, Puiatti claims that the trial court's denial of his severance motion (and resulting joint trial) violated his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing determination. For numerous reasons, Puiatti's claim wholly fails.

First, Puiatti was not prevented from presenting any mitigating evidence. Puiatti has not proffered a single piece of evidence he was unable to put before the jury or judge for consideration by virtue of the joint penalty phase.

Second, no state statute nor judicial interpretation nor jury instruction restricted the jury or judge from considering, or acting upon, Puiatti's mitigation evidence. Rather, the Florida trial court appropriately instructed the jury during the penalty phase to carefully weigh and consider "all of" the evidence presented, stating, "Before you ballot you should carefully weigh, sift and consider the evidence, and all of it, realizing that human life is at stake, and you should bring to bear your best judgment in reaching your advisory sentence."

The state trial court also instructed the jury about the potential sentences for Glock and Puiatti separately and individually.29 "Jurors routinely serve as impartial factfinders in cases that involve sensitive, even life-and-death matters" and "[i]n those cases, as in all cases, juries are presumed to follow the court's instructions." Hammond v. Hall, 586 F.3d 1289, 1334 (11th Cir.2009) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Hensley, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2139, 2141, 173 L.Ed.2d 1184 (2009)). Courts presume that the jury heard, understood, and followed the court's instructions. Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208-11, 107 S.Ct. at 1708-09.

Third, although Puiatti attempts to connect and intertwine severance with his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing determination, we can locate, and Puiatti has cited, no Supreme Court decision doing so. Lockett and its progeny do not address joint penalty phases or say that the presence of a co-defendant at a capital defendant's penalty phase trial has any Eighth Amendment implications whatsoever. None of the Lockett line of cases relates to severance or helps Puiatti's claim at all. Puiatti, like the district court, cites no precedent that suggests a joint penalty trial is improper for co-defendants who were properly joined in the guilt phase. The Supreme Court has never intimated, much less held, that the special concerns in capital cases require, or even suggest, that severance is necessary.

Fourth, while we consider Puiatti's § 2254 appeal separately from Glock's, this Court already has rejected Glock's claim that a joint trial deprived him of an individualized sentencing determination. See Glock V, 84 F.3d at 385-86 (rejecting as non-meritorious Glock's claim "that his sentence should be set aside because ... the trial court refused to sever his sentencing proceeding from his co-defendant's, thereby depriving him of individualized sentencing").

For all four reasons, Puiatti has not shown the state trial court's severance denial deprived Puiatti of his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing determination.

We could stop here but for the fact that Puiatti, as a pre-AEDPA petitioner, also tries to advance a new constitutional theory.30 Even though a separate penalty trial is not part of his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing determination, Puiatti argues that the severance denial and joint penalty phase, under the facts of his case, prejudiced him to the point of effectively denying his constitutional right to an individualized sentencing decision or at least a fair hearing. A threshold problem for Puiatti is that he has not shown any severance error at all, much less severance error rising to the level of a constitutional violation.

For example, Puiatti has not satisfied the prejudice requirement at Zafiro's first step for analyzing severance claims. Puiatti claims he was prejudiced because his mitigation theory—substantial domination by Glock—was undermined by Glock's mitigation defense that Glock was a follower, too. However, Glock's expert Dr. Mussenden, although testifying Glock was a follower, also testified that Glock's role in Ritchie's murder was an "expression of [Glock]'s anger and resentment towards women and all of the failure and rejection he had experienced all his life."31 In closing, Glock's counsel never argued that Glock was under the substantial domination of Puiatti at the time of the crime and expressly disclaimed any argument to that effect.

If anything, Glock and Puiatti presented similar mitigation theories—counsel for Puiatti and Glock both argued their clients were insecure, easily led men who were under stress because of personality problems, unfortunate circumstances, and poor relationships with their families, but who nevertheless would not have committed the murder but for the presence and association of the other. Simply put, the defendants did not present antagonistic mitigation defenses.

In any event, the Supreme Court has held expressly that "[m]utually antagonistic defenses are not prejudicial per se." Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 538, 113 S.Ct. at 938. "The Supreme Court has held that co-defendants do not suffer prejudice simply because one co-defendant's defense directly inculpates another, or it is logically impossible for a jury to believe both co-defendants' defenses." Blankenship, 382 F.3d at 1125 (discussing Zafiro). This also underscores the vital role of a joint trial in preventing inconsistent verdicts.

Puiatti also complains that Glock's counsel (as well as the State) got to cross-examine Puiatti's mental health experts, Drs. DelBeato and Meadows. This also did not prejudice Puiatti. Glock's counsel's questioning of DelBeato and Meadows was brief, with only a few questions each. Glock's counsel had DelBeato and Meadows admit that neither expert had examined Glock and that whether Puiatti was influenced by Glock depended on Glock's psyche as well as Puiatti's.32 Glock's counsel's cross-examination did not cause the introduction of irrelevant or incompetent evidence. "[A] fair trial does not include the right to exclude relevant and competent evidence." Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540, 113 S.Ct. at 938.

Puiatti also argues that the fact that Glock testified, and Puiatti did not, prejudiced him. Puiatti points to no case in which the Supreme Court or this Court has held that a non-testifying defendant is prejudiced by the mere fact that one of his co-defendants chooses to testify. In fact, we have concluded that "favorable observation of the willingness of one of several co-defendants to testify does not constitute an impermissible comment on the failure of the other co-defendants to testify." United States v. O'Neill, 767 F.2d 780, 786 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1363 (11th Cir.1983)). Moreover, Puiatti's argument ignores that Glock testified briefly and only about the remorse he felt for Ritchie's murder. Puiatti used multiple penalty-phase witnesses to testify that he too was remorseful. Puiatti was able to, and did, impart similar testimony to the jury without testifying.33 If anything, the fact that Glock testified helped Puiatti because Glock did not deny the joint confession's statements that Glock suggested the idea of killing Ritchie and Glock fired the last two shots that killed her.

Puiatti also argues the fact that Glock argued the mitigating factor of no significant prior criminal history applied to him highlighted Puiatti's lack of ability to argue this factor for himself. However, Puiatti's own penalty-phase witnesses testified that Puiatti was involved in a burglary and was on probation at the time of Ritchie's murder. Even in a separate penalty trial, the jury would know Puiatti already had a criminal history.34 There was no vast disparity in either the quality or quantity of mitigation evidence presented by Puiatti and Glock.

The bottom line is Puiatti's prejudice claim essentially rests upon an implicit contention that a separate penalty trial is required whenever a co-defendant's presence might reduce a defendant's chance to avoid a death sentence. We have found nothing in severance law or Eighth Amendment jurisprudence to support this position. See Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540, 113 S.Ct. at 938 (stating that "it is well settled that defendants are not entitled to severance merely because they may have a better chance of acquittal in separate trials"). Puiatti has failed to show any specific way that he was prejudiced by being tried jointly with Glock at the penalty phase.

Indeed, the specific facts of this case made a joint penalty phase particularly appropriate. Puiatti and Glock acted together in planning and effecting the abduction, robbery, and murder of Ritchie. Both Puiatti and Glock fired shots at Ritchie. It was Puiatti who was the first to fire shots at and strike the helpless victim from close range. Puiatti and Glock issued a joint interlocking confession that agreed on how many shots were fired, who fired each of them, and when. Puiatti and Glock kept driving by and shooting Ritchie until they were sure she would die. As the state trial court aptly noted, this case is a "classic example of why joint defendants ought to be [tried] together in order to get justice."

In fact, Puiatti's joint trial with Glock avoided the inequity of inconsistent verdicts and one capital defendant going second with the benefits of previewing the State's evidence and arguments. See Richardson, 481 U.S. at 210, 107 S.Ct. at 1708-09 (stating, "Joint trials generally serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts" and by not "randomly favoring the last-tried defendants who have the advantage of knowing the prosecution's case beforehand"). The Lockett-Eddings-Penry-Abdul-Kabir principle that the sentencer must be allowed to consider and give effect to "all relevant mitigating evidence," see Eddings, 455 U.S. at 117, 102 S.Ct. at 878, is quite compatible with a joint trial. To the extent any arguable tension may exist between joint trials and individualized sentencing, it did not occur here. See Bernard, 299 F.3d at 475 (noting potential tension between joinder and a defendant's right to an individualized capital sentencing decision, but affirming defendant's death sentence in a joint trial).

If any two capital co-defendants could be properly joined in a penalty phase, it was Puiatti and Glock. Puiatti has not shown that his severance denial violated any constitutional right.

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment vacating Puiatti's death sentence. On remand, the district court shall consider and resolve all of Puiatti's other constitutional claims as to his death sentence.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.