Carolyn Burdette v. United States of America

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0102n.06
No. 09-5916
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CAROLYN BURDETTE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
Before: SILER, MOORE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
SILER, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Carolyn Burdette of conspiracy to murder her
husband Randy. After this court affirmed her conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Burdette
filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her sentence. The district court denied her petition
and she now appeals. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
After Burdette’s husband Randy joined the military, the couple was stationed in Texas where
they became acquainted with Army Sergeant Steve Adams. For some period of time between 1991
and 2000, Adams and Burdette maintained a romantic relationship. Eventually, Burdette sought
Adams’s help to kill her husband. After attempting unsuccessfully to kill Randy, at Burdette’s
insistence, Adams asked Michael Myott, a fellow serviceman and sniper, to kill Randy. Myott
reported the solicitation to John Massie, who arranged for a sergeant to contact and meet with

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
Adams, posing as a hitman. Adams’s efforts failed because, unknown to both Burdette and Adams,
Massie was an undercover Army Special Agent investigating the murder plot. Adams was tried and
convicted by a military court for his role in the conspiracy.
Burdette was charged with conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire and with the use of
interstate facilities to commit murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. At trial, in addition
to Adams’s testimony, the government also produced a number of letters sent by Burdette to Adams.
These letters reflected the romantic relationship between Burdette and Adams, and one letter
contained a coded reference to Burdette’s plan to kill her husband. Also at Burdette’s trial, Julie
Neuman and her husband John, acquaintances of the Burdettes, testified that Burdette admitted to
having a relationship with Adams. Both also testified to hearing Burdette and Adams discuss
possible ways to kill Randy. Finally, Massie testified that he contacted Burdette, portraying the hit
man hired by Adams to kill Randy. Burdette and Massie discussed possible ways to kill Randy, and
Burdette supplied Massie with her husband’s likely location and the vehicle he would be driving.
Burdette testified at trial that her relationship with Adams was not consensual. She claimed
that Adams had raped her and that she was the victim of Adams’s delusional obsession. Burdette
denied ever knowing that Adams had attempted to have Randy killed. Burdette was convicted on
both counts and the district court sentenced her to 151 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, we
affirmed Burdette’s conviction and sentence. United States v. Burdette, 86 F. App’x 121 (6th Cir.
2004).
Burdette then filed this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her sentence. She
argued that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial because her counsel failed to
obtain certain impeachment evidence for use against Adams. In support, Burdette submitted the

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
testimony of Dr. Joan Schleicher at Adams’s military sentencing hearing. Dr. Schleicher, a
psychologist, concluded that Adams suffered from a “schizoid personality disorder” and that he
possessed “deep, delusional beliefs about his role in the world.” As a result, Dr. Schleicher found
that Adams was unable to properly “weigh what[] [was] happening in his relationship with
[Burdette], or what[] [was] not happening.” Adams fantasized himself to be Burdette’s rescuer. Dr.
Schleicher concluded, however, that Adams was able to distinguish right from wrong and did not
suffer from hallucinations.
By the time of Burdette’s trial, Adams had already been sentenced for his role in the
conspiracy, and Dr. Schleicher’s testimony would have been available for Burdette’s use. Despite
his close contact with Adams’s military counsel, Burdette’s trial counsel failed to obtain Dr.
Schleicher’s testimony. Burdette’s trial counsel could not explain why he failed to do so, but
concluded that the testimony would have been helpful, both to impeach Adams and to support the
defense’s theory that Burdette was the victim of violent treatment by Adams. The district court held
that the failure by Burdette’s counsel to obtain this impeachment evidence constituted deficient
performance but that the error did not prejudice Burdette. Accordingly, the district court denied
Burdette’s § 2255 motion.
DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion de novo, but review the district court’s
findings of fact for clear error. Benitez v. United States, 521 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2008).
Burdette argues that the failure by her trial counsel to obtain Dr. Schleicher’s testimony
created sufficient prejudice such that, with the inclusion of this testimony, the outcome of her trial
would have been different. Whether a defendant is deprived of the effective assistance of counsel

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
is determined under the two-pronged Strickland test. “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s
performance was deficient. . . . Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance
prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Because the district
court found deficient performance, but not prejudice, we address only the second prong of the
Strickland inquiry.
To demonstrate prejudice, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Id. at 694. A “reasonable probability” is a probability “sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome.” Id.
Burdette argues that, with Dr. Schleicher’s testimony, a reasonable jury could have
discounted Adams’s testimony as delusional—supporting her defense that Adams raped her—or
concluded that she and Adams shared a consensual affair but that Adams erroneously believed that
Burdette asked him to kill Randy. The amount and substance of other evidence admitted at
Burdette’s trial, however, in addition to Dr. Schleicher’s testimony, prevents us from reaching any
conclusion other than that this impeachment evidence would not have altered the outcome of
Burdette’s trial.
Dr. Schleicher’s testimony would not have altered the trial’s outcome because it would not
necessarily have discredited Adams’s testimony. As the district court observed, Dr. Schleicher’s
testimony was a double-edged sword. Dr. Schleicher concluded that Adams did not suffer from
hallucinations and she considered him to be “a truthful, honest guy.” While Adams may have been
delusional, Dr. Schleicher testified that it was Burdette who manipulated an unstable Adams. The
other evidence at trial further bolstered Adams’s testimony. The letters sent by Burdette to Adams

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
evidenced that a romantic relationship existed between the two. Burdette concluded nearly every
letter with the words “love and miss you” or “love always.” In addition to Adams, two other
witnesses at trial testified that Burdette herself admitted to the existence of a consensual, romantic
relationship with Adams.
Furthermore, the ample amount of other evidence admitted at trial overwhelmingly proved
Burdette’s guilt, Dr. Schleicher’s testimony notwithstanding. Julie and John Neuman both testified
that they witnessed Adams and Burdette discuss various ways of killing Randy. Burdette’s other
letters also suggested her desire to have Randy killed. Burdette begged Adams to “please help me,”
and stated that she would be thankful “when this [was] ALL OVER.” Finally, Burdette was recorded
discussing the killing of her husband with a presumed hitman. Burdette suggested to Massie that
deer hunting season would begin soon. Massie and Burdette discussed the number of hunting
accidents that occurred each year, and Burdette provided Massie with the specific location where her
husband would be hunting.
There was ample evidence to prove that Burdette participated in a conspiracy to have her
husband killed. Dr. Schleicher’s testimony fails to raise a reasonable probability that, with it, any
juror could have possessed a reasonable doubt respecting Burdette’s guilt. As a result, Burdette does
not show the prejudice required to demonstrate that she was deprived of the effective assistance of
counsel.
AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --