Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4.

5 3 6U .S

. 3 0 4(2 0 0 2 ). 1 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70012

GERAL D CORNELI US E LDRI DGE, P eti ti on er–A p p ell a n t,

v. N A TH A N I E L Q U A R TE R M A N , D i r ec t or , Texas D epar t m entof C r i m i nal Jus t i c e , Cor r e c t i o nalI ns t i t ut i o ns D i vi s i o n, R espon den t–A pp el l ee .

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 05- C V

- 1847

B ef ore S T E W A R T , O W E N , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P R ISC ILL AR

. O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg e: * Pet i t i o ne rG e r al d El dr i dg e s e e k s ac e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e al ab i l i t y ( CO A) o n t he i ssu e of w h eth er E l d ri d ge i s m en tall y re tard ed an d th u s i n eli gible for th e d ea th pen al t y u n der A tk in s v . V irg in ia

. W e d e n yh is re q u e s t fo ra C O A

.

1 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 70012

Id

. 2 2 I In A p ri l 1 9 9 4 , E l d ri d ge w a s con victed of ca p i tal m u rd er a n d sen ten ced to deat h f ork i l l i n g C ynt hi a B ogany and herni ne- year - ol d daught er , C hi r i ss a. Cynt hi a B ogany was El dr i dg e ’ s f o r m e rg i r l f

r i e nd a nd t he m o t he ro f hi s s e ve ny e a r -o ld s o n , T e r r e ll. T h e e v id e n c e e s t a b li s h e d t h a tE ld r id g e w e n tto C y n t h ia B o g a n y ’s ap ar t m e n t , ki c ke d i n t he do o r , a nd s ho tChi r i s s a be t w e e n t he e ye s a tpo i nt

- bl ank
r a n g e , k illin gh e rin s ta n tly

. E ld r id g e t h e n s h o t a t c lo s e ra n g e h is s o n T e r r e ll anda no t he ri ndivi dua l , W ay ne D o t s o n, b o t h o f w ho m w e r e w o unde d b ut survi ved

. C yn t h i a f

l ed the ap art m en tb u tE l dri dg e chased an d cau gh ther w h en sh e tri p p ed an d fellon the stairs o u ts i d e a n eigh b or’ s ap a rtm en t. D esp i te C yn t h i a’ s pl eas f

or her l i fe, E l dri dg e shot h er t w i ce i n t h e hea d, ki l l i n g h er i n st an t l y. E l dri dg e w as t w en t y- ei gh tyears ol d at t h e t i m e of t h e m u rders. T h e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls (T C C A) affirm e d E ld rid g e ’s
c onvi c t i on and s ent enc e. E l dri dge’ s i ni t i als t at e habe as c or pus appl i c at i on w as pe ndi ng w he n t he Supr e m e Cour to f t he U ni t e d St at e s de c i de d At ki ns . 2 T h ereaf t er, w h i l e hi s f

irst h a beas ap pl i cat i on w as st i l lpen di n g, E l dri dg e f i l ed
a s e c o nd s t at e ha be as pe t i t i o n r ai s i ng an At ki ns cla im

. Th e TC C A deni ed E l dri dge’ s i ni t i alhabeas appl i c at i on and, on t he s am e day, di sm i ss ed E l dri dge’ s se c ond appl i c at i on as an abus e o f t he w r i t , s t at i ng,

“ W e ha ve revi ew ed the fact s app l i can tpresents i n hi s ‘ At ki ns c l ai m ’a nd f

i nd t hat , ev en i f

t hey w er e t r ue, he has notes t abl i she d a p rim afa cie cl ai m as set f o r t h by t hi s C o ur ti n [Exp a rte ] B ri seno [1 3 5 S .W .3 d 1 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 4 )].” E l dri dge f

i l ed a sk eletalpet i t i on f ora w r i tof

habeas c or pus i n fede r al d is tr ic t c o u r t. E ld r id g e la te rfile d a n a m e n d e d p e tit io n r a is in go n lyo n e cla imN o. 08- 70012

2 8U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 3 (c). 3 Id

. § 2 2 5 3 (c)(2 ). 4 3 f o rr e l i e f: t hatt he E i ght h A m e ndm e ntpr o hibi t s El dr i dg e ’ s e xe c ut i o n b e c aus e he is m e n ta llyre ta r d e d

. The r e s po nde nt , N at h an i elQ u art er m an, D i r e c t o ro f t he Te xa s D e pa r t m e nt of C ri m i n alJu st i ce (T D C J) C orrec tion alI n st i t u t i on s D i vi si on , m oved f or
s u m m a r yju d g m e n t , a s s e r t in gt h a t t h e e v id e n c e fa il e d to s u p p o r tE ld r id g e ’s
c l ai m . Bot h si des f i l e d e xt e ns i ve b r i e fs a nd e xhibi t s , i nc l udi ng gr ad e s a nd
s t and ar di z e d- t e s tr e c o r ds f r o m El dr i dg e ’ s s c ho o ly e ar s , t e s t i ng pe r f o r m e d b y t he pr i s o n s ys t e m , and t e s t i ng pe r f o r m e d b y e xp e r t s r e t ai ne d f o rt hi s l i t i ga t i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nduc t e d a fou r - da y e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng atw hi c h El dr i dg e a nd th e T D C J p r e s e n t e d t e s tim o n yfr o m m e n ta l-h e a lth e x p e r ts a n d fr o m fa m ily
m e m b e r s , frie n d s , a n d o th e r s w h o k n e w o rh a d o b s e r v e d E ld r id g e . Af t e rc ar e f

ul l y c o ns i deri ng t he pe t i t i o n, s um m ar y j udg m e ntm o t i o n,
s t a t e - c o u r tr e c o r d , p a r t ys u b mi s s i o n s , e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , a n d a p p l i c a b l e l a w, t he di st r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d r e s po nde nt ’ s m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nta nd den i ed E l dri dg e’ s pet i t i on f or a w rit o f h a b e as cor pu s. Th e di st ri ctcourtal so de ni e d El dr i dg e ’ s r e que s tf o ra CO A. El dr i dg e no w pe t i t i o ns t hi s c o ur tf o rt he g r a n t o f a C O A

. II U ndert he A nt i t er r or i sm a nd E f fec t i ve D eat h P enal t y Actof 1996 (A E D P A), a p e t it io n e rm u s ts e c u r e a C O Ato a p p e a l a fe d e r a l d i s t r ic tc o u r t ’s d en i a lof h a b ea s reli ef. AC O Aw i l lb e gr a n ted o n l y i f th e p eti ti on er m a k es “a 3
su b stan ti a l sh ow i n g of th e den i a lof a con sti tu ti on a lri gh t. ” T h i s cou rt con d u cts 4
a “ t hr e s ho l d i nqui r y” a nd m us ti s s ue a CO A i f “ r e as o nab l e j ur i s t s w o ul d f i nd t heN o. 08- 70012

Mi ller -El v. C

ock re ll , 537 U. S. 322, 336, 338 (2003) (quoting Slackv. McDan iel , 52 9 5 U. S. 4 7 3 , 4 8 2 , 4 8 4(2 0 0 0))

.

Gomez v. Quarterman , 5 2 9F .3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 6 Id . (qu oti ng Thom

ps onv . C

ai n , 1 6 1 F .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 0 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 8))

. 7 See T EX . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 11.0 71, § 5 (Vernon Supp. 200 8) (providin g that 8 a successive state h abe as corpus petition maynot b e consi dered unl ess th e petitio ner all eges sp ecif icfactsest ab li shin ga c on stitution al violation); Ex parte Staley , 160 S. W.3 d 56, 63 (Tex. C ri m. App . 2 0 0 5).

See Rivera v. Quarterman , 50 5 F .3d 3 49, 35 9 ( 5t h Cir. 2 007) (“[T]o de cide wheth er 9 an Atk ins clai m is an abu se of the writ, the CCA ex amin es th e substance of th e cl aim to se e if it establi shes apri ma facie case of retardation , an d onlyupon decidingthat que stioncan the st atec ourtd ecide wh eth err em an d isapp ro priate .”).

Bro wn v. Dretke , 4 1 9F .3 d 3 6 5 , 3 7 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5). 10 5 3 6U .S

. 3 0 4 , 3 2 1 (2 0 0 2 ). 11 4 d i stri ct co u rt’ s a sse ssm en t of th e con sti tu ti on a lcl a i m s d eb a tab l e or w ron g.” “ In 5 dea t h pen al t y cases, an y dou bts as t o w h et h er t h e C O Ashou l d i ssue are res ol ved i n favor of t h e peti t i on er. ” W e do “ n otgran trel i ef on an y cl ai m adj u di cat ed on 6 t he m erits b y a s t at e c our tunl es s t he s t at e de c i si on w as c ont r ar y t o, oran
unr e as o nab l e a ppl i cat i on of, cl earl y est abli shed federall aw as deter m i n ed byt he S u p r e m e C o u r t, o rif th e s ta te co u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n o f fa c ts w a s u n r e a s o n a b le in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e .” 7 T h e st ate court di sm i ssed E l dri dg e’ s At ki ns cla im a s a n a b u s e o f th e w r it becau se E l dri dg e ha d n otal l eged su f f i ci en tfact s t o est abli sh a p ri m a faci e case. 8 T h i s c ou rtha s previ ou sl y n ot ed that such a d i sm i ssali n T exas i s a deci si on on t h e m eri t s. Th eref

ore, A E D P A ’ s deferenti alst an da rd of revi ew app l i es. 9 1 0 III The Supr e m e Cour ti n At ki ns v . Vi rgi ni a he l d t hatt he Ei ght h Am e ndm e nt f orb id s th e e x e cuti on of t h e m en t al l y ret arded

. Th e C ou rtl ef t“ t o t h e States 11 t h e t ask of dev el opi n g ap propri ate w ays to en f orce t h e consti t u t i on alres t ri ct i onN o. 08- 70012

Id . at 317 (qu oti ng Ford v. Wain wright , 4 7 7U .S

. 3 9 9 , 4 0 5 , 4 1 6 -1 7( 1 9 8 6))

. 12 Inre Hearn , 4 1 8F .3 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5). 13 Ex parte Briseno , 13 5 S .W.3d 1, 7& nn.2 4-25(T ex . C rim. App . 2 004) (citing 14 Ame ricanAsso ci ationof Me ntal R et ard ation , M ENTAL R E T A R DA T I ON : D E F I NI T I ON , C L A S S I F I C A T I ON , A ND S YSTEM S O F S UPPO RT 5( 9 the d. 1 9 9 2 ))

.

See Rivera v. Quarterman , 50 5 F .3d 3 49, 361 -63 (5thC ir. 2 007) (holdin g that th e 15 district court did not cle arlyerrinfin ding th at defen dantsuffered from significantly sub aver a ge intell ectu al functio nin gan d relate d li mitation s ina daptive functio nin g); see a lso Brise no , 13 5 S .W.3d at 9 (“ [T]h e ultimate i ssue of whe t he r[ a] p er son is, in fact, mentally retarded for purposes of th e E ighthAmendment b an on excessive punish ment is o ne for the fin der of f act , b a se d u po nallof th e evidencean d determ in ation s of cr edib ility .”). Thom ps onv . C

ai n , 1 6 1 F .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 0 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 8). 16 St . Aub in v. Quarterman , 4 7 0F .3 d 1 0 9 6 , 1 1 0 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 17 5 u p on i t s exe c ut i on of se nt enc es . ” B ec ause t he Su pre m e C our t dec l i n ed to 12
ex p l i ci tl y d efi n e “m en tal retard a ti on ” f or p u rp ose s of t h e E i gh th A m en d m en t, Texas c our t s have e m pl oye d t he def i ni t i on pr om ul gat ed bythe A m er i c an A ssoc i ati on of

M en t alR et arda tion

. Th i s def i n i t i on i m poses t h ree 13
r equi r em ent s: ( 1) s i gni f i c ant l y s ubaver age gener ali nt el l ec t ualf unct i oni ng, gener al l y de f

i ned as an I Q be l ow 70; ( 2) r el at ed “ l i m i t at i ons i n adapt i ve f u n ct i on i n g, ” def

i n ed as “ si gn i f

i can tli m i t ati on s i n a n i n di vi du al ’ s ef fect i ven ess i n m eet i n g t h e st an da rds of m a tu ra tion , lea rn in g , p e rs o n a l i n d e p e n d e n ce , an d/or
s o c i al r e s po ns ibi l i t y t hat ar e e xp e c t e d f o r hi s o rhe ra ge l e ve la nd c ul t ur alg r o up, as de t e r m i ne d b y c l i ni c alasses s m e nta nd, us ual l y, s t and ar di z e d s c al e s ” ; a nd ( 3) onset pri or t o t h e age of 18. D et erm i n ati on of w h et h er E ld ridg e sat i sf i es 14
a n y o f th ese elem en ts i s a q u estion of fact. 15 In a h abea s proceedi n g, w e revi ew t h e di st ri ct court’ s f i n di n gs of factf

or cl ear err or and concl u si on s of l aw de n ovo, app l yi n g t h e sam e st an da rd of revi ew t o t he s t at e c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n a s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t
. “A f i ndi ng i s c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us 16
o n lyif it is im p la u s ib le in th e lig h t o f th e re c o r d co n s id e r e d a s a w h o le .” 17N o. 08- 70012

SeeAM E R I C A N P SYCH I ATRI C AS S OCI A T I ON D I A GN OS T I C A ND S TATI STI CAL MA NU A L OF 18 M ENTAL D I SORDERS 41-4 2 (T ext Revision , 4th ed. 2 000) (DSM-IV ) (“Thus, it is po ssibleto di a gno s eM e nt alRe t ar d ati o ninin divi du al swithI Qsb e twe e n7 0an d7 5wh oexhibit signif ic ant deficits in adaptive b ehavior. Conversely , Mental Ret ardationwoul d not b e diagnosed in ani ndividu al with an IQ lower than 70 if th ere are no significant deficits or im pair me ntsina daptive functio nin g .”).

4 9 3F .3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 6 -8 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 19 6 IV T h e di str ict court f ou n d that E l dri dg e di d n otha ve sub st an da rd in te llig e n c e . E ld r id g e ’ s IQ te s t r e s u lts a r e co n s is te n t w ith s u c h a fin d in g . In 199 4, E l dri dg e sc ored a f u l l

- scal e I Q of

112 on a versi on of

t h e W echsl er A d u l t I n te llig e n c e S c a le (W A IS ) a d m in is te r e d b ya s u p e r v is o ro f p s y c h ia tr ic
s e r vi c e s a tt he TD CJ u n i t
. L at e r , t he TD CJ’ s e xp e r t , D r . Tho m as Al l e n, ad m i n i s t e r e d adi f

ferent f orm of t h e W A IS t estan d reported t h at E l dri dg e sc ored a f u l l

- scal e I Q of

8 4 . O n ly E l dri dg e’ s f u l l

- scal e I Q sc ore of 72, on a test
a d m in is te r e d b yh is e x p e r t w itn e s s , D r . P a tr ic ia A v e r ill, p la c e d h im in th e m ild ly
m en tall y re tard ed ran ge
— a n d the n o n l y i f E l d ri d ge sh ow ed si gn i fi ca n t de fi ci ts i n adapt i ve behavi or . Al t hough D r . A ver i l lc on cl u d ed thatE l dri dge w as 18
m e nt al l y r e t ar de d, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t f o und D r . Ave r i l l ’ s a nal ys i s a nd c o nc l us i o ns t o be un rel i able becau se s h e fai l ed to consi der or t estf or th e p o ss ibi l i t y of
m al i n geri n g or l ack of ef f ort , fai l ed t o consi der explana t i on s orpossibi l i t i es ot h er t h an m en t alret arda t i on f or t h e te st result s s h e obtai n ed, an d rel i ed on l y on l i m i t e d i nf

o r m at i o n a bo utEl dr i dg e ’ s b ac kg r o und. Fur t he r , b e f o r e t est i ng E l dri dg e, D r. A veri l lrevi ew ed n o s ch oolor w ork recor ds, pri or I Q sc ores, or psych ol ogi cal e v al u ati on s and di d n oti n t ervi ew E l dri dg e’ s fam i l y an d f ri en ds. I n W o o ds v . Q uar t e r m an , w e he l d t hata st at e co ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o n t hatt he pet i t i onerfai l ed t o de m ons t r at e t hathe su ffered f r om s ubaver age gener al i nt e l l e c t ualf

unc t i o ni ng w as not u nr e as o nab l e . I n W o o ds , t h e p e t it io n e r ’s 19 exp ertw as the “ on l y person t o testW oods’IQ b el ow seven t y” an d di d so on a t estN o. 08- 70012

Id . at58 6. 20 Id

. 21 Id

. at 5 8 7
. 22 5 1 7F .3 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 23 Id

. 24 See id

. 25 7 w he n t he pe t i t i o ne r“ hada n i nc e nt i ve t o pe r f o r m po o r l y. ” Pe t i t i o ne r ’ s f o ur 20 oth er IQ test scores w ere ab ov e se ve n ty p o in ts. W e con cl u d ed tha t t h e sta te 21 h abea s c ou rt ’ s deci si on t o gi ve m ore w ei gh tt o t h e peti t i on er’ s c h i l dh ood IQ t est
scor es t h an t h e scor e obtai n ed by t h e peti t i on er’ s expertw as reasonab l e becau se t he l at es tr es ul tc oul d have bee n ca use d by a m ot i vat i on t o s c or e po or l y. 22 Fur t he r , i n Mo o r e v . Q uar t e r m an , w e hel d t hat a st at e c our t ’ s dec i si on t hat a defend an tw as not m en t al l y di sabl ed “w as not c on t rary t o or ot h erw i se i n vol ved an un reasona bl e app l i cat i on of cl earl y est abli shed fede rall aw ” even t hough t he def

endantpr es ent ed e vi denc e o f f ul l

- sc al e I Q s c or es of 68, 72, 72, 76, 63, and 76. There , “ so m e expertopi ni on s upport ed a f i ndi ng of

s ubaver age 23 i nt el l ec t ualf

unct i oni n g, [but ] t her e w as ot herex per tev i denc e i ndi c at i ng t hat M oo r e d i d n ot s uf

ferf r om s uch f

unct i oni ng and t hathe under per f or m ed o n at le a s t s o m e o f th e te s ts .” 24 S i m i l ar t o Bri s e no , i n t h i s case, E l dri dg e d i d n otrec ord an I Q sc ore l ow er t han 72 , a nd a l l o t he r s c o r e s w e r e hi ghe r t han 75
. Addi t i o nal l y, a s i n W o o ds , t he d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t fin d E ld r id g e ’ s fu ll-s c a le IQ s c o r e o f 7 2 to b e re lia b le , p a r tly becau se E l dri dg e ha d a m ot i vati on to score poorl y. Final l y, si m i l ar t o Moore , D r. A lle n co n c lu d e d th a t E ld r id g e w a s n o t m e n ta llyre ta r d e d a n d d e lib e r a te ly exert ed n o ef

f orton the m ostrec en tI Q t est s. 25N o. 08- 70012

8 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n d th a t E ld r i d g e d id n o t p o s s e s s s u b s ta n tia lly sub averag e i n t el l i gen ce. B ased on t h e evi den ce, reasona b le j u ri st s w ou l d n ot d is a g r e e th a t t h is fin d in gw a s n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . V Th e di st r i c t co urtal so ex am i ned E l dri dge’ s c l ai m ed de f i c i t s i n adapt i ve fu n c tio n in ga n d d e te r m in e d th a t t h e e v id e n c e d id n o t s h o w a s ig n ific a n t d e fic it
c o n s is te n t w ith m e n ta l re ta r d a tio n . A T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s fin d in gth a t E ld r id g e w a s n o t d e fic ie n t in a c a d e m ic fun cti on i n g is no t cl ea rl y e rron eo u s. E l d ri d ge ’ s gra d es i n h i gh sch oo l , sev en ti eth per c ent i l e g r aduat i on r anki ng, and t he fac t t hathe pas se d t he pi pe- f i t t er s exam a ll s u p p o r t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s fin d in gth a t E ld r id g e w a s n o t d e fic ie n t in
ac adem i c f

uncti oni ng. Furt her , E l dri dge’ s c onducti n pri so n, l et t er s, and or al
c o m m e n ts m a d e d u r in gtr ia l le n d s u p p o r t t o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s fin d in g . E l d r i d g e a r g u e s t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tfa i l e d t o w e i g h p r o p e r lyD r . Av e r il l’s te s tim o n y a n d th a t re a s o n a b le ju r is ts co u ld d is a g r e e a s to w h e th e rD r . A v e r ill consi dered evidence show i n g t h at E l dri dg e w as capab l e of m ore academ i c w ork t h an h er tes t i m on y i n di cat ed. B u tthe di st ri ctcou rtf ou n d D r. A veri l lt o be not credibl e becau se she di sm i ssed evi den ce w i t h ou tan adeq u ate basi s f or doi n g so. F or exam pl e, D r. A veri l lcl ai m ed t h at E l dri dg e recei ved hel p w ri t i n g h i s l et t ers a n d a g r ie v a n c e w ith th e S ta te B a ro f T e x a s b u t c ite d n o e v id e n c e th a t t h is act u al l y occurred. Th e di st ri ctcourtst ated, “ [ i ] n short , D r. A v eri l lw as ei t h er unawar e o f, o r di s c o unt e d, e vi de nc e t hat w as i nc o ns i s t e nt w i t h t he c o nc l us i o ns sh e h a d rea ch ed

. ” E ld rid g e a lso cla im s th a t h e d id n o t p a ss th e p ip e -fi tte rs ex a m b yh im se lf, butt hathi s b r o t he r , B arryEl dr i dg e , t o o k t he t e s tf o rhi m . H o w e ve r , t he t rai n i n g coordi n atorf or t h e pi pe-f

i t t ers u n i on t est i f

i ed t h at t h e t estw as t ak en i n a l oc ked r oo m an d t hatB ar r y di d nothave a keyt o g eti n. Add i t i onal l y,N o. 08- 70012

9 B arry’ s s crat ch pa per f rom hi s o w n a ttem pt t o j oi n t h e un i on an d that of E l dri dge’ s t es t s sho w ed s t ar k di f fer enc es i n p r o b l e m - s o lv i ngt e c hn i q ue s . Fi na l l y, a hand w r i t i ng ana l ys ta nd c e r t i f i e d f r aude xa m i ne rt e s t i f i e d t hatEl dr i dg e ’ s a nd B a r r y ’ s t e s ts w e r e n o t w r itt e n b yth e s a m e p e r s o n , a n d th a t itw a s h ig h ly p r o b a b le th a t a ll o f E ld r id g e ’ s p ip e -fit te r s e x a m s w e r e w r itt e n b yE ld r id g e . El dr i dg e a l s o a r gue s t hatg r e at e rw e i ghts ho ul d ha ve b een g i ve n t o t he t e s t im o n yo f

h i s m o t h e r , M a t t ie W a d e , B a r r yE ld r id g e , a n d o n e o f E ld r id g e ’s te a c h e r s a t J a c k Y a te s H ig h S c h o o l, J u d ith Z in s s e r . A ccor di n g t o E l dri dg e, M att i e W ad e t est i f i ed that she t ook l ibri u m bef ore gi vi n g bi rt h t o hi m an d that he di d poorl y i n el em en t ary school

. B u tt h e di st ri ct court n ot ed these fact s i n it s op i n i on a n d observed t h at the schoold i d n otrequi re El dr i dg e t o r e pe ata grade. Addi t i o nal l y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tno t e d t hatD o nna L aw son, one of

E l dri dg e’ s el em en t ary- schoolt each ers, u sed E l dri dg e as a peer t ut o rf o rki nde r ga r t ne r s w he n he w as i n t hi r d g r ad e a nd t hatLawso n’ s t e s t i ng o f E ld r id g e in s e c o n d g r a d e d id n o t in d ic a te m e n ta l re ta r d a tio n . B arry E l dri dg e t est i f i ed that he h el ped E l dri dg e w i t h hi s hom ew ork, even
w hen El d r i d g e was a y e a r a he a d o f Bar r y i n hi g h s c ho o l

. Thi s t e s t i m o nyw as
r e f ut e d, ho w e ve r , b y an i nt erv i e w w i t h W an- Li ng W o o db ur y, El dr i dg e ’ s hi ghschoolal gebra teacher. I n t h at c l ass, W oodb u ry requi red h er st u den t s t o w ork
o u t m a th p r o b le m s o n th e b la c k b o a r d , a n d “E ld r id g e w a s n o t a s s is te d b yh is b r o th e rB a r r yo ra fr ie n d in w o r k in go u t s u c h p r o b le m s in th e cla s s r o o m .” W oo dbury st at ed t hat E l dri dge c oul d not be m ent al l y r et ar ded and per f or m as
w e ll a s h e d id in th e a lg e b r a cla s s . Fi nal l y, El dr i dg e c l ai m s t hatr e as o nab l e j ur o r s coul d di s ag r e e o n t he
w ei gh t t o gi ve Z i n sser ’ s t est i m on y t h at Jack Y ates H i gh S chool w as a l ow perf orm i n g schoolan d t h at st u den t s’ grad es w ere not n ecess ari l y vali d. Zi n sser al s o t e s t i f

i e d t hatEl dr i dg e t e s t e d i n t he b o t t o m o ne per c e nti n t he t w e l f t h g r ad e i n readi n g. B u tt h e di st ri ctcourtnoted t h at, even t ak i n g i n t o accoun tt h e l owN o. 08- 70012

10 p e r fo r m a n c e o f J a c k Y a te s H ig h S c h o o l, it w o u ld b e d i f fic u lt fo ra m e n ta lly ret arded person t o grad u ate i n t h e seven t i et h percenti l e of hi s hi gh

- schoolcl ass. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n d th a t E ld r id g e d id n o t s u ffe ra d e fic it in a c a d e m ic f u n ct i on i n g. R eason able j u ri st s w ou l d n otdi sagree t h at th is f i n di n g w as not
c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . B T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n g t h at E l dri dg e w as not def i ci en ti n t h e area of
w ork al so w as n otcl earl y erroneou s. E l dri dg e w as regul arl y em pl oyed , rec ei ved good perf

orm an ce r evi ew s, w orked over f ort y h ou rs per w eek at t i m es, rec ei ved reg ul arpa y r ai s e s a nd, a to ne po i nt , e ar ne d a bo utf o urt i m e s t he m i ni m um
w age. E l dri dge’ s pri m ar y ar gum enti s bas ed o n D r . A ver i l l ’ s t es t i m ony t hat Bar r y El dr i dg e he l pe d t he pe t i t i o ne rt ak e t he pi pe - f i t t e r s e xa m . H o w e ve r , t he di st r i c t c our t pro per l y f ound t hat t he c r edibl e evi denc e sho w ed t hat E l dri dge to o k th e e x a m o n h is o w n a n d w a s s u c c e s s fu l in th e p ip e -fit te r s a p p r e n tic e s h ip program . Th eref

ore, reasonab l e j u ri st s w ou l d n o t di sagree t h at t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t’s fin d in gw a s n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . C T h e d is tr ic t co u r t’s fin d in gth a t E ld r id g e d id n o t h a v e a n a d a p tiv e d e fic it in s o c ia l fu n c tio n in gw a s n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . E ld r id g e h a d fr ie n d s d u r in gh is
s c h o o ly e a r s , a l t h o u g h n o tm a n y , a n d e v i d e n c e s h o w e d t h a tE l d r id g e w a s s o c ia lly confi den ti n sc h oolun t i lhi s kn ee i nj u ry. E l dri dg e h ad gi rl f ri en ds i n hi gh sc h ool and subs equent l y had r el at i ons hi ps w i t h ot herw om en, i ncl udi ng a c om m on- l aw
w ife . E ld r id g e le ft s o c ia ll ya p p r o p r ia t e m e s s a g e s o n C y n t h ia B o g a n y ’s
an sw eri n g m ach i n e an d, si n ce bei n g i n pri son, E l dri dg e h as h ad “ pen pa l s” f rom aro u n d the w orl d w i t h w h om he corr espon ds, i n t eract i on s t h at D r. A l l en c o nc l ude d wer e i nc o ns i s t e ntw i t h m e nt alr e t ar da t i o n.N o. 08- 70012

See Marshall v. Lonb erger , 4 5 9U

. S

. 4 2 2 , 4 3 4( 1 9 8 3) (“ 2 8U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4 ( d) give s 26 federal h abe as courts no lice nse to redeterminecre dibilityof witnesses whose demeanor h as b ee nob se rvedbyth e st atetri al c ourt , b ut notb yth em .”); Pippin v. Dretke , 43 4 F .3d 7 82, 792 (5thC ir. 2 005) (“A

tri al court’s cre dibilitydetermination s made ont hebasis of conflicting evidence are e ntitled to astron g presumption of correctn ess an d are ‘virtuallyunreviewab le’ by the fed eralcourt s. ” (quo ting Moore v. Jo hns on , 1 9 4F .3 d 5 8 6 , 6 0 5( 5 thC ir .1 9 9 9)) ). 11 E l dri dg e argu es that reason able j u ri st s cou l d d i sagree as t o t h e accuracy o f s o m e o f

D r . A l l e n’ s st at e m e nt s , suc h a s t he f i ndi ng t hatt he m e s s ag e s o n t he
ans w e r i ng m ac hi ne w e r e s o c i al l y ap pr o pr i at e . El dr i dg e a l s o a r gu e s t hatt he
cou rt sh ou l d h a ve given m ore w eigh t to B a rryE l d ri d ge ’ s testi m on y a n d l ess to t h a t o f H u b e r tH a r d e m a n . B e c a u s e th is c o u r td e fe r s to th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
c r e dibi l i t y deter m i nat i o ns , r e as o nab l e j ur i s t s w o ul d no tdi s ag r e e t hatt he 26 di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f

i ndi ng t hat El dr i dg e di d no ts uf fe ra de f i c i ti n s o c i alf

unc t i o ni ng
w a s n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . D T h e di st ri ctcourtf

u rt h er f ou n d that E l dri dg e w as n ot defi ci en t i n t h e area of hom e l i fe. E vi den ce s h ow ed that E l dri dg e cash ed h i s paych ecks, shared exp en ses w h en he l i ved w i t h gi rl f ri en ds, shop ped f

or groc eri es, an d perf orm ed
s o m e ho us e ho l d c ho r e s . H e had a j o b as a pi pe - f i t t e r ’ s hel pe rand he hada ba nk
a c c o u n t. H e d r o v e a n d k n e w h o w to re p a irca r s . E ld r id g e cla im s th a t r e a s o n a b le ju r is ts c o u ld d is a g r e e t h a t h e h a d a d e fic it i n hom e l i vi n g becau se of t h e t est i m on y of

D r. A veri l l

. B u tt h e di st ri ctcourt f ou n d that D r. A v eri l l ’ s c on cl u si on s w ere based on assum pti on s not sup ported b yth e e v id e n c e . E l dri dg e al so argues t h at t h e di st ri ctcourti m prope rly w e ighed m u ch of B ar r y El dri dge’ s t es t i m ony. Acc ordin g t o El dri dge, B ar r y i ndi c at ed t hat E l dri dg e coul d n o t li ve by h i m sel f or t ak e care of

routi n e chores athom e. C ynt hi a B ogany’ s ni ec e r ef ut ed t hi s t es t i m ony w hen she st at ed t h a t El dri dge
c o o k e d fo rth e fa m ilya n d m a d e o th e rco n tr ib u tio n s to h o m e life

.N o. 08- 70012

Ex parte Briseno , 1 3 5S .W .3 d 1 , 8(T ex . C ri m. App . 2 0 0 4). 27 12 E l d ri d ge f

u rth er a rg u es th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt g a v e t o o m u ch w eigh t t o Bar r y El dr i dg e ’ s t e s t i m o ny t hathi s br o t he rw as no tm e nt al l y r e t ar de d. Buto ne o f t he e v i d e n t i a r y fa c t o r s fa c t

- f i n d e r s m i g h t f

o c u s u p o n i s wh e t h e r “ t h o s e w ho kn ew t h e person best du ri n g t h e de v e lopm en t alst age— h i s fam i l y, f ri en ds, te a c h e r s , e m p lo y e r s , a u th o r itie s — [th o u g h t] h e w a s m e n ta llyre ta r d e d

. . . .” 27 T h e r e fo r e , it w a s n o tim p r o p e rfo rth e d is t r ic tc o u r tto g iv e B a r r yE ld r id g e ’s
s ta te m e n t w e ig h t. F in a lly , E ld r id ge a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r lyw e ig h e d M a tt ie W ade’ s t es t i m ony t hathe c oul d notbuy gr oc er i es “ w i t h a l ong li st” and t hat E l d ri d ge w a s f

orb i d d en f

rom u singth e m i crow a ve after bu rn i n g so m e b rea d

. In l i ghto f o t he rev i de nc e , howev e r , r e as o nab l e j ur i s t s w o ul d no tdi s ag r e e t hatt he d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s f

i n d i n gt h a tE l d r i d g e d i d n o ts u f fe ra d e f

i c i t i n t h e a r e a o f

h o me liv in gw a s n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . VI T h e di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded t h at “ [ t ] h e evi den ce show s t h at E l dri dg e does
n ot h a ve si gn i fi ca n tl y su b a ve ra ge i n tel l ectu a lf u n cti on i n g o r si gn i fi ca n t de fi ci ts i n a da pt i ve f

unc t i o ni ng. I t ne c e s s ar i l y f o l l o w s t hat s uc h s ym pt o m s di d not
m an i festbef

ore E l dri dg e t u rned 18 yea rs ol d. ” E l dri dg e’ s s t an da rdi zed tes t s a nd
ac adem i c per f

or m ance suppor t suc h a c onc l usi on. I n t he s ec ond gr ade, E l dri dge t est ed i n t h e f

ort y- si xth percenti l e on the P eabod y P icture V ocabu l ary T est (P P V T ), w h ic h is w i t h i n “n o r m a l” r a n g e . A c c o r d in gto th e P P V T , E ld r id g e ’s
m en t al age w as on e m on t h beh i n d h i s c h ronol ogi calage. A dd i t i on al l y, as noted earl i er, E l dri dg e w as a peer t u t or f or k i n derga rt n ers w h en h e w as i n t h e t h i rd grad e. Fu rt h er, E l dri dg e w as n ot i n speci al

- edu cat i on cl asses, w as n ot h el d ba ck to re p e a t a g r a d e , a n d g r a d u a te d fr o m h ig h s c h o o l in th e s e v e n tie th p e r c e n tile
o f h is cla s s . F in a lly , n o n e o f h is fr ie n d s o rfa m ily , n o ra n ym e d ic a l p r o fe s s io n a l,N o. 08- 70012

See id

. at 17 (“Itis highlysignificant th at in none of these volu minou s records is 28 there any indication from any source that any person thou ght applicant might be m en t ally retard ed .”). 13 gave any i ndi c at i on bef or e E l dri dge t urned e i ght ee n t hatt hey be l i eve d E l dri dge
w as m e nt al l y r e t ar de d. 28 T h e e v id e n c e in t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o r t E ld r id g e ’ s co n te n tio n th a t h is al l ege d m ent al r et ar dat i on had an ons et bef or e age ei ghteen

. A c c or di ngl y,
r eas onabl e j uri st s w oul d notdi sa gr ee t hatt he distri ct c our t ’ s f i ndi ng t hat E l dri dge’ s al l ege d m ent alr et ar dat i on di d notm ani fes tbe f or e a ge ei ght ee n w as
n otcl earl y erroneou s. * * * Bec aus e r e as o nab l e j ur i s t s w o ul d no tf i nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a s s e s s m e nt
o f th e co n s tit u tio n a l cla im s d e b a ta b le o rw r o n g , E ld r id g e ’ s r e q u e s t fo r a C O Ais D E N IE D

.