to Reid only in terms of whether it negated the existence of an aggravating factor. On direct appeal, Reid argued that the trial court must not have considered evidence regarding his medical conditions and his intoxication at the time of the offense, because if it had, it would have determined that the murder was not vile and that Reid therefore could not be sentenced to death. The Virginia Supreme Court rejected this claim, determining “that the trial court did, in fact, consider Reid’s mitigating evidence.” Reid, 506 S.E.2d at 792. The State maintains that Reid failed to present his Eighth Amendment claim to the Virginia Supreme Court on direct appeal and that it therefore was not properly exhausted. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Mallory v. Smith, 27 F.3d 991, 995 (4th
holding substance of claim must have been presented to state court recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile holding that constitutional claim must be fairly presented to state court in order to satisfy exhaustion requirement