Pursuant to 5 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 forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70042
ANTHON Y L EROY PI ERCE P eti ti on er-A p p ell ee C ross -A p p ell a n t v. RI CK T HALER, DI RECT OR, T EXAS DEP ART M ENT OF CRI M I NAL J US T I CE , C OR RE CT I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DI VI S I ON R espon den t
- A pp el l an tC ross - A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C V

- 1561

B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * In 198 6, a T exas j u ry convi ct ed and s e nt e nc e d t o death p et i t i on er–ap pel l ee A n t h on y L eroy P i erce f or t h e m u rder of F red E u gen e J oh n son du ri n g a robbery
o f a C hur c h’ s C hi c ke n re s t aur anti n 197 7. St at e a ppe l l at e c o ur t s a f f i r m e d t he
c o nvi c t i o n and s e nt e nc e and de ni e d po s t
- c o nvi c t i o n r e l i e f

. Pi e r c e t he n b r o ugh t
a fed era lh a b ea s p eti ti on u n d er th e A n ti terror i sm an d E ff ective D ea th P en a l ty A c t( “A E D PA ” ) , 28 U
. S. C

. § 2254. Th e di st r i c t c our tgr ant ed Pi er c e s ubst ant i ve United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

7, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 70042

2 rel i ef on on e of h i s sentenci n g cl ai m s, concl u di n g t h at t h e speci alis sues presented to t h e j u ry att h e sentencin g p h a se di d n otproperl y perm i tt h e j u ry to co n sid e r a n d g ive effe ct to P ier ce ’ s m iti g a tin ge v id e n ce , in v iola tion of Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U
. S

. 302 ( 198 9)

. Th e d i st ri ctcou rtd en i ed the rem ai n i n g bases f or s u bstantive rel i ef an d d en i ed a cert i f

i cat e of ap pea l abil i t y ( C O A ) on those iss u e s. T h e State’ s app ealof t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of rel i ef un der Penry is
no w b e f

o re u s, a s i s Pi e r c e ’ s r e que s tf o ra CO A f

o rs o m e o f

t he c l ai m s he
u n s u c c e s s f

u l l yr a i s e d i n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t
. W e g r a n tP i e r c e ’ s r e q u e s tf o ra C OA
as t o hi s c l ai m s t hathe i s m e nt al l y ret ar de d (r e nde r i ng hi m i ne l i gibl e f o rt he dea t h p e n al t y u n der A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 5 36 U
. S. 3 04 ( 20 02 ) ) , a nd t hathe received i n ef

fect i ve assi st an ce of coun sel
. P i erce’ s requ est i s den i ed on al lot h er c la im s . W e res erve opi n i on on the govern m en t ’ s app ealof t h e Penry is s u e u n til af t er or al argu m en t , du ri n g w h i ch w e w i l l h ear argu m en t as t o P i erce’ s Penry, At ki ns , an d i n ef

fect i ve assi st an ce c l ai m s. I . Fa c t ualand Pr oc e dur alBac kgr ound T h e d i stri ct cou rt’ s ex h a u sti ve op i n i on m ore tha n ad eq u a tel y d ocu m en ts th e fa c tu a l b a c k g r o u n d a n d p r o c e d u r a l d e v e lo p m e n t of th is ca s e . See Pi e r c e v. Q uar t e r m an , N o. H

- 07-1561 , 200 8 W L 444 506 4 ( S

. D
. T ex. Sep t
. 26, 200 8)

. H ere, w e rec i t e onl y so m an y of t h e fact s an d proc edu re as are n ecess ary t o provi de a f r a m e wo r k f

o ro u rg r a n ti n p a r ta n d d e n i a li n p a r to f a COA. P i erce w as i n di ct ed fo r c ap i t alm u rder f or t h e shooti n g dea t h of F red E uge ne J o hn s o n, t he m a na g e r o f a Chu r c h’ s Chi c ke n i n H o us t o n, d ur i ng a robbery of

t h at r est au ran ton A u gu st4, 197 7. P i erce’ s f i rstt w o convi ct i on s w ere overt u rned , i n both cases becau se t h e t ri al court h ad i m properly ov e rr u l ed d e fe n s e c o u n s e l’ s ch a lle n g e s to ce r ta in v e n ir e m e m b e r s . S ee P ier ce v. S ta te , 604 S .W .2 d 1 8 5 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ); P ier ce v. S ta te , 6 9 6 S

. W. 2 d 8 9 9 (T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 8 5 ). P i erce w a s tri ed an d con victed a th i rd ti m e a n d sen ten ced to de a thN o. 08- 70042

3 i n 198 6. Th e T exas C ou rt of C ri m i n alA pp eal s (T C C A) af f i rm ed the convic t i on a n d s e n te n c e , P ier ce v . S ta te , 7 7 7 S .W .2 d 3 9 9 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ), ce rt. d enie d , 4 9 6 U .S

. 9 1 2 (19 9 0 ), a n d d e n ied h is a p p li ca tion fo r p o stc o n v iction re li e f, Ex pa rt e Pie rce , N o. 15859- 03 (Tex. C r i m . A pp. Sept

. 19, 2001)

. O n A ugust29, 200 2, P i erce f

i l ed a successor st ate h abea s ap pl i cat i on , w h i ch t h e T C C Aden i ed
o n A p r il 1 8 , 2 0 0 7
. Ex pa rt e Pie rce , N o . 1 5 , 8 5 9

- 0 4 , 2 0 0 7 WL 1 1 3 9 4 1 4 (T e x . C r i m. A pp . A pr. 18, 2 007 )

. P i erce f i l ed a 28 U
. S

. C

. § 225 4 federalha beas peti t i on on M ay9 , 2 00 7, a n a m e nde d f e de r alha be as pe t i t i o n o n Augus t3 0, 2 007 , a nd a
s u p p le m e n ta l fe d e r a l h a b e a s p e tit io n o n J u ly1 , 2 0 0 8
. P i erce presented t h i rt een is sues t o t h e di st ri ctcourt
. O n cr oss- m ot i on s f or sum m ary j u dg m en t , t h e di st ri ct court gran t ed Pi erce rel i ef on the f

i rstof t h ese i ss ues : w het hert he st at ut or y spe c i al i ss ues pre se nt ed t o t he j ury ats ent enc i ng, an d the prosecutor ’ s c l osi n g argu m en t s r egard i n g t h ose s pe c i ali s s ue s , precl u ded t h e j u ry f

rom “ consi der[ i n g] an d gi v[ i n g] ef fectt o” P i erce’ s m i t i gati n g evi den ce, as Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U
. S

. 302 ( 198 9) , requi res. T h e d i st ri ctcourtgran t ed
s u m m ar y j udg m e ntt o t he St at e o n t he r e m ai ni ng t w e l ve i s s ue s , de nyi ng t he
r el i ef Pi er c e s oughtand d ec l i ni ng t o gr anta C O A

. Pi er c e no w s ee ks a C O Aas to fiv e issu e s o n w h ich th e d istr ict co u rt d e n ied re li e f. I I . St andards of

R evi ew P ie r c e ’ s m o tio n is g o v e r n e d b yth e a p p lic a b l e p r o v is io n s o f A E D P A

. S ee Li ndh v
. Mur

phy , 521 U
. S. 320, 335–36 ( 1997)

. U nderA E D PA , a s t at e habe as pe t i t i o ne rm aya ppeal a d i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f hi s pe t i t i o n o nl y i f t he d i s t r i c t co ur t o rt h e c o u r to f a p p e a l s f

i r s ti s s u e s a COA. 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(B ); se e a ls o M iller

–E l v. Co ck re ll , 537 U
. S. 322, 336 ( 2003) ( des c r ibi ng a CO Aas a “j uri sdi c t i onalpr er equi si t e” w i t houtw hi c h “ fede r al
c our t s of

appeal s l ac k j uri sdi c t i on t o rul e on the m er i t s of appeal s f

r om habeas p e t i t i o n e r s ” )

. I n d e t e r m i n i n gwh e t h e rt o g r a n ta pe t i t i o n e r ’ s r e q u e s tf o ra COA,
w e l i m i tour “ exa m i n ati on t o a t h reshol d i n qu i ry i n t o t h e un derl yi n g m eri tofN o. 08- 70042

4 [t h e p eti ti on er’ s] cl a i m s. ” Mi l l e r–El , 537 U
. S. at 327 (c i t i ng S l ack v. McD an i el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 1 (2 0 0 0 )). “T h is th r e s h o ld in q u ir yd o e s n o t r e q u i r e fu ll
con sider a ti on of th e factu a lor l eg a l b a ses a d d u ced i n su p p ort of t h e claim s. In fact, the statu te f

orb i d s i t. ” I

d. at336. W e w i l lgran ta request f o r a C O A“ on l y i f

t h e app l i can tha s m ad e a s u b s t a n t i a l s h o wi n g o f t h e d e n i a l o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t
. ” 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 )

. I n o r d e rt o g r a n ta C OAf o ro n e o f

P i e r c e ’ s s u b s t a n t i v e c l a i ms , we m ustconc l ude onl y t hatP i er c e has dem ons t r at ed t he thr es hol d show i ng f ort hat
s u b s ta n tiv e cla im
. Se e Mi l l e r–El , 5 3 7 U .S

. a t 3 2 7
. “A lth o u g h th e issu a n ce of a C O A‘ m u stnot be pr o f o r m a o r a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e , ’ t h e p e t i t i o n e r s a t i s f i e s t he bur de n und e r§ 2 25 3(c ) ‘byde m o ns t r at [ i ng] t hatr e as o nab l e j ur i s t s w o ul d f i nd t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s a s s e s s m e n to f t h e c o n s t it u t io n a l c la im s d e b a t a b le o rw r o n g .’” Pi ppi n v. D ret ke , 4 3 4 F .3 d 7 8 2 , 7 8 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) ( quot i ng Mi l l e r–El , 537 U
. S

. at 337 –38 )

. “ [A ] cl ai m can be d ebatable even t ho ugh e ve r y j ur i s t o f r e as o n m i ght ag r e e , af t e r t he CO A ha s be e n gr ant e d a nd th e ca s e h a s re c e iv e d fu ll co n s id e r a tio n , th a t p e tit io n e r w i l l n o t p r e v a il.” Mi l l e r–El , 5 37 U
. S. a t3 38
. “ [A] ny do ubta s t o w he t he ra C O A s ho ul d i s s ue i n a d ea th -pen a l ty ca se m u st be reso l ve d i n fa vo r of t h e p eti ti on er.” P ipp in , 434 F. 3d at787. In determ i n i n g w h et h er t h e d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s den i alof P i erce’ s pet i t i on f

or a C O Aon hi s c l ai m s w as de b a tab l e, w e m ustkee p i n m i nd t he def er ent i al stan d a rd of r ev i ew tha t A E D P Areq u i res a distri ct cou rt t o a p p l y to th e sta te
c o u r t’s ru lin g s . See B r ow n v. D r e t ke , 41 9 F
. 3 d 36 5 , 37 1 ( 5 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (“W i th
r e s pe c tt o t he r e vi e w o f fac t ual f i ndi ngs , AE D PA s i gni f i c ant l y r e s t r i c t s t he s c o pe o f fe d e r a lh a b e a s r e v i e w. ” )

. Un d e rAEDP A, a federal court i s n ot t o gran t a w ri t of ha beas corpu s “ w i t h res pect t o an y cl ai m t h at w as adjudic ated o n the m eri t s i n State court proceedi n gs” un l ess i tdeter m i n es t h at t h e s t ate c ou rt ’ s adj u di cat i on “ r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on th a tw as c ont r ar y t o, ori nvol ved anN o. 08- 70042

5 unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on of, cl ear l y e st abl i she d Feder all aw , as d e te r m in e d b yth e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” P ipp in , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 7 8 7 (q u o tin g2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 )). M o r e o v e r , a

“ ‘ det er m i nat i on o f

a fac t uali ss ue m ade by a St at e c our ts hal lbe pr es um ed t o b e c o r r e c t ’u n l e s s t he pe t i t i o ne rr e but s t he pr e s um pt i o n ‘byc l e ara nd c o nvi nc i ng ev i d en ce.’” I

d. at 7 8 8 (qu ot i n g 28 U
. S

. C

. § 2254 ( e) ( 1) )

. “ T h i s presum pti on of
corre ctn ess a tta ch es n ot on l y to ex p l i ci t f i n d i n gs of fact, bu t also to

‘ u n art i cul ate d find i n gs w h i ch are necessary t o t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s c on cl u si on s of
m i xe d l a w an d fa ct. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Po nd e x t e r v . D r e t ke , 3 4 6 F
. 3 d 14 2 , 14 8 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 )). U nde r AE D PA , a fe de r al di s t r i c tc o ur tm ayg r anta n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng o nl y i f t he pr i s o ne rdi l i ge nt l y andr e as o nab l y at t e m pt e d, “ i n l i ghto f t he i n form a ti on av a i l a b l e a t t h e ti m e, to i n ve sti ga te an d pu rsu e claim s i n state
cou rt. ” Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 2 0 , 4 3 5 (2 0 0 0 ); seealso 2 8 U. S

. C. § 225 4( e) ( 2) ( a) (i i) ( “ [ T ] h e [ di st ri ct ] courtshallnot hol d an evi den t i ary h eari n g on t he c l ai m unl es s t he a p p l i ca n t show s t hat
. . . t he c l ai m r el i es on . . . a fac t ual predic ate t h at c ou l d n otha ve been previ ou sl y di scov e red t h rough t h e exerci se of du e d i l i ge n c e.” ). F or sta te cou rts to ha ve a fu l lan d fa i r op p ortu n i ty to adj u di cat e t h e ha beas ap pl i can t ’ s c on st i t u t i on alcl ai m s, “ [ d]i l i gen ce w i l lrequi re i n t he us ualc as e t hat t he pr i s o ne r , a ta m i ni m um , s e e k a n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng i n state cou rt i n the m a n n er p resc rib ed b y sta te l a w . ” Wi l l i a ms , 529 U
. S. at437. E ve n t h en , m ere req u ests for an ev i d en ti a ryh ea ri n g w i l ln ot d em on strate
r e a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e . B u rto n v. T er re ll , 5 7 6 F .3d 2 6 8 , 2 7 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); D ow t h i t tv. Joh n son , 23 0 F
. 3 d 7 3 3 , 758 ( 5t h C i r . 2000)

. “ I n ca se s w her e a n ap pl i can tf

or f ederalha beas rel i ef

i s not barred f

rom obtai n i n g an ev iden t i ary h e a r in gb y2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e )(2 ), th e d e c is io n to g r a n t s u c h a h e a r in gre s ts in th e d i scre ti on of th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” Sc hr i r o v . Landr iga n , 550 U
. S. 465, 468 (2 0 0 7 ). Ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to g r a n t o rd e n ya n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in gisN o. 08- 70042

6 r e v i e w e d fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . C l ark v. Joh n son , 20 2 F
. 3 d 76 0 , 76 5

– 6 6 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). II I. A n a ly s is P i erce seeks a C O Aa s to f i ve i ssues: ( 1) w h et h er t h e prosecuti on ’ s fai l u re t o di s c l o s e c e r t ai n e xc ul pa t o r y e vi de nc e v i o l at e d Bra dy v . Mar y l and , 373 U
. S. 83 ( 196 3) , an d theref

ore enti t les P ierce t o a new t ri al ; ( 2) w h et h er t h e t ri alcourt
e r r e d i n no ta l l o w i ng an ar c hi t e c tt o t e s t i f y as a n e xp e r t w i t n e s s r e ga r di ng al l eged f

l aw s i n the l i n eu p i n w h i ch P i erce w as i den t i f i ed; ( 3) w h et h er t h e j u ry i m properl y consi dered extraneou s i n f orm ati on or ot h erw i se c om m itt ed
m i scondu ct ; ( 4) w h et h er P i erce i s a m en t al l y ret arded of fen der w h ose executi on i s bar r ed by A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 5 3 6 U .S

. 3 0 4 (2 0 0 2 ); a n d (5 ) w h e t h e r P i e r c e ’s t r i alc o uns e lpr o vi de d i ne f fe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e by fai l i ng t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd p r e s e nt cert ai n m i t i gati n g evi den ce duri n g t h e sentenci n g ph ase. A s t o th e last t h ree is su es, P i erce a l so con ten d s th a t th e dist ri ct cou rt a b u sed i ts d i scre ti o n in
r ef usi ng t o g r ant hi s r eques tf oran ev i dent i ar y hear i ng. A . Th e Bra dyC la im Pi er c e c ont ends t hat t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s r ef usalt o g r anthi m a n ew t r i al
u n der Bra dy v . Mar

y l and , 373 U
. S

. 8 3 ( 196 3) , w as deba t able or w rong. B ef ore r ul i ng on t he c r oss- m ot i ons f ors um m ar y j udgm enton Pi er c e’ s fede r alhabeas pe t i t i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d l i m i t ed di scov e r y as t o w he t he rt he pro se c ut i on had fai l ed to d i scl os e t hatc er t ai n w i t nes se s atPi er c e’ s t hi r d t r i al h ad rec e ive d am o ne t ary rew ard. D ocum en t s produ ced f rom P i erce’ s prosec u t i on f i le reveal ed that t w o of t h e w i t n esses w h o t est i f i ed ag ai n stP i erce at al lt h ree of hi s t r i al s, t he br ot her s R egi nal d and G eo r ge Sand er s ( w ho w er e a ged t w elve and f i f t ee n, r es pec t i vel y, att he t i m e o f t he c r i m e) , as w el las anot hert ee nage w i t n ess w h o d i d n ottest i f y, sh ared equ al l y i n a $ 1, 000 rew ard that t h ey received
s h o r tly a fte rP ie r c e ’ s f ir s t c o n v ic tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c k n o w le d g e d th a t t h is undi s c l o s e d e vi de nc e w o ul d ha ve b e e n m at e r i alf o ri m pe ac hm en tb utN o. 08- 70042

7 ne ve r t he l e s s de ni e d Bra dy re lie f, c o n c lu d in gth a t t h e r e w a s n o t a re a s o n a b le proba bi l i t y, i n l i gh tof t h e ot h er evi den ce, t h at di scl osure w ou l d h ave ch an ged th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l. Pi e r c e v . Q uar t e r m an , N o. H

- 07- 1561, 2008 W L 4 4 4 5 0 6 4 , a t *2 5 (S .D
. T e x . S e p t. 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 ). Th er e a r e t hre e e s se nt i alc om ponent s t o a Bra dy prosecutor i alm i scondu ct cl ai m : “ ‘ T h e ev i den ce at i ssue m u stb e favorabl e to t h e accused, ei t h er because i ti s excul pa t ory, or becau se i ti s i m pea chi n g; t h at evi den ce m u stha ve been sup pressed by the S t ate, ei t h er w il l f u l l y or i n ad vert en t l y; an d p rej u di ce m u st h a ve en su ed
. ’” B anks v. D r e t ke , 5 40 U
. S

. 6 68, 6 91 ( 20 04 ) ( quo t i ngSt r i c kl e rv. G r e e ne , 5 27 U
. S. 2 63 , 2 81 –8 2 ( 19 99 ) )

. Pr ej udi c e i s e s t ab l i s he d wher e t he re e x is ts a “r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility ” th a t h a d th e e v id e n c e b e e n d is c lo s e d th e re s u lt
a t t r ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d i f fe r e n t. I

d. a t 6 9 9
. “A‘ re a so n a b le p ro b a b il ity ’of a di f ferent r esul ti s s h ow n w h en t h e [ st ate] ’ s evi den t i ary sup pressi on ‘ u n derm i n es con fi d en ce i n th e ou tcom e of th e t ri a l
. ’” S ee K yl es v. W

h i t l ey , 514 U
. S. 419, 434 ( 1995) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ag l ey , 4 7 3 U .S . 6 6 7 , 6 7 8 (1 9 8 5 )). T h e di st ri ctcourtcon clu d e d th a t th e n o n d isclo su re d id n o t prej u di ce Pi erce be c aus e t he Sande r s br o t he r s i de nt i f i e d Pi e r c e a s t he s ho o t e rs ho r t l y af t e rt he
m u r d e r , p r o v id e d te s tim o n yco n s is te n t w ith t h a t id e n tific a tio n a t t r ia l, a n d d id
no tr e c e i ve t he r e w ar d m on ey u n t i la f t e rt he f

i r s tt r i alw as c o m pl e t e . The di s t r i c tcou rt a l s o no t e d t hatt he r e w e r e t w o a ddi t i o nale ye w i t ne s s e s , Br e nda Char l e s a nd Ro nal d Co o ks , w ho t e st i f i ed t hatPi e r c e w as t he s ho o t e ra nd who di d n otrec ei ve a rew ard. T h e st ate h abea s court speci f i cal l y f ou n d, i n res pon se t o o t he ri s s ue s r ai s e d i n Pi e r c e ’ s s t at e ha be as a ppl i c at i o n, t hatChar l e s a nd C oo ks w er e c r edi b l e w i t nes se s w ho had i dent i f i ed Pi er c e t hro ugh a l egal l yappro pri at e l i neup. T he di st r i c tcour tacc ept ed t he st at e habe as c our t ’ s fac t ual andl e ga lc o nc l us i o ns o n t ho s e i s s ue s a s re as o nab l e , and Pi e r c e doe s notse e k a C O Aa s to th o s e is s u e s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s h o ld in gt h a t th e n o n d is c lo s u r e d id
n o t p r eju d ic e P ie r c e b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o re a s o n a b le lik e lih o o d th a t itw o u ldN o. 08- 70042

With respectt o Judge Dennis’s dissent on the Brad y issue, we provide a so mewhat 1 full er tr eatm ent of

the iss ueswith res pec t to theSande rsboys’ te stim ony. First, we describ e the trialrec ord on the San ders b roth ers’ testimony. Although only Reginald S anders saw the cr im e beingcommitted, b oth boy s saw Piercefle e th e sce ne. Reginald S anders testified that although he did not know AnthonyPie r c e b y name , heh ad seen him before aroun d th eir hou sing proje ct and in fact had seen Pi erce earlier that day wearin g the same di stinctly -patterned shirt that h e was wearin g when fleeingth e sce ne of th e crime. Wh en que stion ed b y a policeofficer on the ni gh to f th e crime, Reginald S anders identifi edth e shooter’ s l a stn a mea s Pierc e b ut a dd edth at “I wasn’ttoosureab out hisf ir st nam e becaus e I neve rr e a l l ym e t himand I thou ght hisfirs t nam e was James .” Ge orge San ders si milarlytestified that h e had seen Pi erce before in their housingproje ct and that h e recogniz ed the shoot er as “one of the Pi erce brothers,” thou ghh e di d not know hi s first name . Whe n brou ght to the police statio n as witnesses shortly after the shooting , both boy s ide ntifi ed Pi erc e ’ s s hirt a s th e s hirt worn b y th e s h o o t e r . Th e di s tric t c o urt c o nc lu d e d th at in light of th es e i de ntification s, ma deimm ediatelyaft erth e shootin g , to geth erwithth e te stim onyof two additional eyewitn esses whodid not receivea reward, t he re wa s norea sonableprobab ility that disclo sure of the reward paid after Pi erce’ s tri al would have ch anged th e o utco me of the trial. Secon d, we a ddress th e “argu ably sugge stive lineup” which the dissent urges as aba sis for c oncludin g that th e reward mon eycould h ave h ad material i mp ea c hm en t valu e. Th e district co urt conclude d withregard to a separate issue raise d inPierce ’s h abe as petitio n that the lineup was not i mpermissibly sugge stive under Simmons v. United States , 39 0 U .S. 37 7, 384(19 68), and Pi erce does not se ek a COA to appealthis co nclusio n. 8 h ave ch an ged t h e res u l ti s not deb atabl e. A ccor di n gl y, P i erce’ s app l i cat i on f or 1
a CO A on t hi s i s s ue i s de ni e d. B . T h e E x p e r t E v id e n tia r y C la im P ie r c e n e x t se e k s a C O Ao n th e is s u e o f w h e th e rth e tr ia l co u r t im p r o p e r ly excl u ded t h e t est i m on y of an a rc h it ect , K en A u st i n , as an exp ertw i t n ess f or P ie r c e . B e c a u s e th e re c o r d co n ta in e d n o p h o to g r a p h o f P ie r c e ’ s lin e u p , A u s tin
s o ugh t to i n t rodu c e a n i l l us t r at i o n o f t he l i ne up d r awn t o s c al e b as e d o n t he d e s c r ip t io n s o f t h e lin e u p p a r t ic ip a n t s in th e H o u s t o n P o li c e D e p a r t m e n t ’s l i n eu p sh eet
. A u stin a lso proposed t o t est i f y m ore general l y abou thow p e r c e p tio n s o f s iz e a r e a ffe c te d b y w h a t su r r o u n d s th e ite m v ie w e d , a n d th a t t h is p h en om en on can in fl u en ce i d en ti fi ca ti on . A u sti n p rop ose d a d d i ti on a lex h ib i ts t o i l l u st rat e t h ese c on cepts
.N o. 08- 70042

9 O n d ir e c ta p p e a l, t h e T C C Aa ff ir m e d t h e t r ia l c o u r t ’s e x c lu s io n o f A u s t in ’s pro pos ed i l l ust r at i on of the l i neup bec ause A ust i n c oul d n otest abl i sh t hati tw as a n a ccurate representat i on of t h e l i n eu p. Th e courtbased thi s c on cl u si on on A u s tin ’ s a d m is s io n t h a t h e b a s e d h is d r a w in go n h e a r s a yp o lic e re p o r ts a n d d id
n o tk n o w if

h is d r a w in gw a s a n a c c u r a t e d e p ic t io n o f t h e lin e u p . A s to A u s t in ’s pr o po s e d t e s t i m o ny andot h er exh i bi t s , t he TCC A hel d t hatAus t i n o f fe r e d no
s p e c ia liz e d k n o w le d g e t h a t w a s n o t a lr e a d yp o s s e s s e d b yt h e ju r o r s . S ee P i erc e v . S ta te , 7 77 S. W
. 2d3 99 , 4 13 –1 4 ( Tex
. Cr i m . App. 1 98 9)

. The TCC A r e ac he d t he
sa m e l ega l conc l usi ons i n denyi ng Pi er c e’ s habeas appl i c at i on. The fede r al d is t r ic tc o u r th e ld th a tth e T C C Ah a d r e a s o n a b ly c o n c lu d e d th a tA u s t in ’s p r o p o s e d illu s tr a tio n o f t h e lin e u p w a s n o t c o m p e te n t e v id e n c e a n d th a t h is proposed expert t e stim on y of fered t h e j u ry no h el pfulspeci al i zed k n ow l edg e. Pi e r c e v . Q uar t e r m an , 2008 W L 4445064, at*1 8. O n this m oti on f

or C O A , P i erce do es n ot d i sp u te th a t th e a p p l i ca b l e sta te
r ul es of ev i denc e r equi r ed e xc l usi on o f t he pr of

fer ed t es t i m ony, buturg es t hat due pr o c e s s ne ve r t he l e s s r equi r e d t he t r i alc o ur tt o a l l o w t he j ur y t o he art he t est i m on y. Pier ce c i t es Cham be r s v . Mi s s i s s i ppi , 4 1 0 U .S

. 2 8 4 (19 7 3 ), G r e e n v. G eo rg ia , 4 42 U
. S. 9 5 ( 19 79 ) , a nd R o c k v . Ar ka ns as , 4 83 U
. S. 4 4 ( 19 87 ) , f o rt he pro pos i t i on t hat a s t at e’ s evi dent i ar y r ul es s houl d notbe appl i ed t o de prive P i erce of

t h e abi l i t y t o p resent a defense w h ere the prof fered evi den ce ot h erw i se bears i n di ci a of

t rustw ort h i n ess. B u tt h i s m i scharacter i zes t h e hol di n gs of t h ese c as e s . The Supr e m e Cour ts ubs e que nt l y c l ar i f i e d, i n Mo n ta n av. E g elh off , 518 U
. S

. 37 ( 1 9 9 6 ), tha t C h am bers an d i t s progeny do n ot st an d f or t h e proposi t i on

“ t h a t a d e fe n d a n t is d e n ie d a fa ir o p p o r t u n it y t o d e fe n d a g a in s t t h e S t a t e ’s accusati on s w h en ever cri t i cal evi den ce favorab l e t o h i m i s excl u ded , ” bu trat h er t hat“ e r r o ne o us e vi de nt i ar y r ul i ngs c an, i n c o m bi nat i o n, r i s e t o t he l e ve lo f a due p roce ss v i olati on . ” I d. at 53 (i n te rn a l quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). Th e C ou rt sp ecif i ca l l y rej ected the po ssibil i ty th a t du e p roce ss req u i res th a t “ a l lcom p eten t,N o. 08- 70042

10 r e lia b le e vid en ce m u st be ad m i tted.” Id
. (i n t e r n a lq u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. T he st a te h a beas c our t ’ s c onc l usi on t hatt he ar c hi t ec t ’ s pro pos ed t es t i m ony w as i n ad m i ssibl e w as a reasona bl e app l i cat i on of cl earl y- est abli shed Su prem e C ou rt la w . T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t ’s c o n c lu s io n th a tth e e x c lu s io n o f t h e a r c h it e c t ’s te s tim o n yd id n o t p r o v id e a b a s is fo rh a b e a s re lie f is n o t d e b a ta b le
. C . T h e J u r y M is c o n d u c t C la im Pi e r c e c o nt e nds t hatt he j u r yi m p r o p e r l yc o n s i d e r e de xt r i ns i c e vi de nc e a nd
en gag ed i n o th e r a cts of m i scondu ct
. H e al so c on t en ds t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt erred i n ref

u si n g t o gran tan evi den t i ary h eari n g on t h ese i ssues. Fir st , P i erce as s e r t s t hatone j ur o ri m pr o pe r l y pe r f o r m e d an out

- o f

- c o ur te xp e r i m e ntdur i ng del iberati on s i n order t o eval u ate t h e t est i m on y of o n e o f the eyew i t n esses , R egi n a ld S a n d e rs, w h o t est i f i ed that he saw P i erce’ s r ef l ect i on i n a w i n dow of t h e C h u rch’ s C h i cken as h e w en t arou n d a c orner of t h e res t au ran t
. Th e j u ror r egul ar l y at e b r eakfas tata ca feteri a and c onf i r m ed, bas ed o n vi sual
o bs e r va t i o ns o f

t he c af e t e r i a w i ndo w , t hato ne c o ul d i nde e d s e e a re f l e c t i o n i n a w i n dow bef

ore goi n g arou n d the corner. S econd , P i erce contend s that t h e j u rors i m p rop erly con sider ed P i erce ’ s fa i l u re to tak e th e sta n d as e vid en ce of h i s gu i l t. Fi nal l y , P i e r c e c o nt e nds t hatt he j ur y i m pr o pe r l y c o ns ul t e d a di c t i o nar y t o de f i ne t h e t erm “ del iberate” i n t h e f i rstspeci ali ssue. Pier ce’ s f ederalha beas peti t i on att ach ed si gn ed aff i da vi t s by t h ree of

t h e j u rors att est i n g t o t h ese fact s. Al t ho ugh t h e s e a f

f i da vi t s w e r e s ubs c r ibe d a nd s w o r n t o i n Augus ta nd S e p te m b e r 1 9 9 0 (be for e P ier ce fi led h is sta te h a b e a s p e tition in D e ce m b e r 1 9 9 0 ), t h ey w ere never presented t o t h e st ate hab eas court , an d there w as no other
e v id e n c e b e fo r e th e s t a t e h a b e a s c o u r tto e s t a b li s h a fa c t u a l b a s is fo rP ie r c e ’s assert i on s. The s t at e ha be as c o ur tde ni e d r e l i e f, co nc l udi ng t hatPi e r c e ha d o f fe r e d no proof t o sup port h i s j u ror m i scondu ctcl ai m s and , w i t h one excepti on , ha d n ot
n a m e d th e j u ro rs a ll e g e d ly in v o lve d
. T h e fed e ra l dis trict co u rt a lso d e n ied re li e f,N o. 08- 70042

Section22 54(b) provides, in relevant part, that the district court should not grant a 2 writ of habea s corpu s toastate pri sonerunle ss “theapp licant has exhau sted th e re medies av ail ab leinth e co urt s of th e St ate .” 2 8U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 4 (b)( 1 )( A ). 11 c itin gla c k o f p r o o f: “P ie r c e p o in ts to n o e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g a n yo f th e s e cla im s .” P i erc e v . Q uar t e r m an , 2 00 8 W L 44 45 06 4, a t* 26
. As Pi e r c e po i nt s o uti n t he
m oti on forC O A , t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s st at em entw as i nco r r ec t

— Pi er c e’ s fede r al hab e as pet i t i o n at t ac he d t he t hr e e j ur o ra f f i da vi t s s w e ar i ng t o t he fac t s t hathe al l e ge d. W e ne ve r t he l e s s c o nc l ude t hatj ur i s t s o f r e as o n woul d no tf i nd t he d is tr ic t co u r t’s u ltim a te d e n ia l o f r e lie f d e b a ta b le b e c a u s e P ie r c e ’s a ffid a v it
e vi de nc e w as pr o c e dur al l y ba r r e d. Th i s c o u r th a s l o o k e d t o t h e e x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e me n t s o f 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4 (b ) in d e te r m in in gw h e th e ra fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t m a yco n s id e ra ffid a v it
e v id e n ce offe re d fo r th e firs t t im e in a fe d e ra l h a b e a s p e tition . U n d e r § 2 2 5 4 (b ), 2 federalha beas peti t i on ers m u stf u l l y exh au stavail a b l e st ate c ou rtrem edi es bef ore proc eedi n g i n federalcourt
. T h i s court revi ew s d e novo t h e l egal qu est i on of w h e th er a f

ederalha beas peti t i on er has exh au st ed st ate c ou rtrem edi es. Sm i t h v
. Q u art e r m an , 515 F
. 3d 392 , 400 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. “ T h e exh au st i on requ i rem en ti s s ati s f i e d w h en t h e substance of t h e f ederalha beas cl ai m ha s been fai rl y pre sen ted to th e high est state co u rt. ” Mor r i s v. D r e t ke , 379 F. 3d 199, 204 ( 5t h C i r . 2004)

. Af f i davi t s pre se nt ed f

ort he f

i r stt i m e i n fede r alhabeas pro c ee di ngs m ay not c ont ai n new fac t ualal l egat i ons and m usts uppl em ent

— as o p p o s e d to fu n d a m e n ta llya lte r— c la im s p r e s e n te d to th e s ta te co u r t. I d. at 20 4– 05
. W e c o nduc t a fac t
- and c as e - s pe c i f i c e xha us t i o n i nqui ry t o de t e r m i ne w he t h e ra ddi t i o nale vi de nc e f unda m e nt al l y al t e r s o rm e r e l y s upp l e m e nt s t he
s t a t e p e tit io n . I

d. a t2 05
. “ I f

t he pe t i t i o ne rpr e s e nt s m at e r i ale vi de nt i ary su p p ort f

or th e fi rst ti m e in fed era lcou rt, the n h e h a s n ot ex h a u sted h i s state
rem ed i es.” S m ith , 515 F. 3d at400 ( c i t i ng Mo rr is , 3 7 9 F .3d a t 2 0 4

– 0 5 ).N o. 08- 70042

S ection2 2 5 4 (e)(2 ) provides : 3 If the applicant h as faile d to developth e factual b asis of acl aim in Statecourt proc ee din g s, th e co urt sh all n ot h ol d a n evidenti ary h earin g on th e cl aimunle ss the applicant shows that— (A) the clai m relies on— (i) an ew rule of co nstitution al law, ma de r etroactive t o ca ses on coll at er alreview b y

the Supre me C ourt , th at was previou sly unavailable ; or (ii) afactu al predic ate that co uld not have b eenpreviously discovered thro ugh the exerciseof due dili ge nce; and (B) the facts underlying th e cl aim would be suffici ent to estab lishbycl ear and

12 Sm i t h v
. Q uar t e r m an , 51 5 F
. 3 d at 40 3 , pr ese n ted ce rtain fac ts si m i l a r to t ho s e i n t he pr e s e ntc as e . I n S m ith , w e concl u ded t h at af f i da vi t s presented f

or t h e f i rstt i m e i n t h e federal h abea s peti t i on w ere proc edu ral l y barred f or fai l u re to e x h a u s t u n d e r§ 2 2 5 4 (b ). I d. W e noted t h at t h e af f i da vi t s provi ded t h e f i rst
ac t ualev i denc e i n suppor tof t he pet i t i oner ’ s c l ai m s t hatt r i alc ounse lhad per f or m ed i nef

fec t i vel y by fai l i ng t o pr es ente vid en c e t hatt he pl ai nt i f f w as abuse d as a c hi l d. The pet i t i oner ’ s st at e habe as appl i c at i on, by c ont r a st, “c o n ta in [e d ] n o e v id e n c e o f c h ild a b u s e o th e r th a n th e p e tit io n e r ’ s a lle g a tio n s .” Id
. a t 40 2
. W e c o n c l u d ed tha t byfa i l i n g to su b m i t t h e a ff i d a vits t o th e sta te hab e as c o ur t , “ Sm i t h fai l ed t o a l l o w t he TCC A an o ppo r t uni t y t o r e vi e w t he credibi l i t y of

” t h e af f i da vi t s an d t h eref

ore “ t h reat en [ ed] t h e st ate’ s r i gh tt o pass u p on an d corre ct all eg ed viol a ti on s of i ts prison ers’ fed era lrigh ts. ” I d. (i nt er nal q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d ). Thi s c o u r t h a s a l s o l o o k e d t o 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) , wh i c h g o v e r n s t he ci rcum st an ces u n der w h i ch a d i st ri ctcourtm ay gran t an evi den t i ary h eari n g on a st ate c ou rtpri soner’ s federal h abea s peti t i on , t o determ i n e w h et h er a dis t ri ct
c our tm ay c ons i der an af f i davi t subm i t t ed f

or t he f i r st t i m e w i t h a f

ede r alhabeas peti t i on . W h ere a s t ate c ou rtpri soner “ h as fai l ed to dev el op the fact u al basi s of
a c l ai m i n Sta t e c our tpr oc ee di ngs, ” § 2254( e) r es t r i c t s th e a va i l abi l i t y o f an evi den t i ary h eari n g t o na rrow ci rcum st an ces t h at Pi erce does n otal l ege are present here. 3N o. 08- 70042

convincing

evidence thatbut forcon stitution al error , norea sonablefactfinder would have fo undth e applicant guiltyof the underlying offe nse. 13 W e a ddr e s s e d a set of fact s s i m i l art o t ho s e i n t hi s c as e i n D i az v. Q uar t e r m an , 239 F. A pp’ x 886 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (perc uri am ) , w hi ch, t hough unpubl i s he d, i s pe r s uas i ve i n i t s r e as o ni ng. I n D i az , t h e st ate hab eas court deni ed r el i ef

on t he pet i t i oner ’ s c l ai m t hatc ounse lpr ovi ded i nef fect i ve a s s is ta n c e b yfa ilin gto p r e s e n t t h e m itig a tin gte s tim o n yo f c e r ta in fa m ily
m em bers w h o w ere w i l l i n g t o t est i f y at t ri al
. T h e st ate hab eas courtem ph asi zed t h at t h e peti t i on er m ad e vari ou s al l egatio n s b u tdi d n ot“ att ach an y t yp e of
a ffid a v it o ro th e rfo r m o f fa c tu a l s u p p o r t fo rh is cla im th a t s o m e o f h is fa m ily
m em b ers w ou l d h a ve be en w i l l i n g to testif y.” I d. at 8 8 7. Th e peti t i on er t h en so ught fede r alhabeas r el i ef and f i l ed, f ort he f i r stt i m e, a s er i es of

af f i davi t s t hat p rov i d ed ev i d en ti a rysu p p ort f or th e factu a lall eg a ti on s ra i sed i n the state hab e as co ur t
. W e af

f i r m e d t he di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s deni alo f ha be as r e l i e f, c o nc l udi ng t h at t h e af

f i da vi t s w ere barred by § 225 4( e) ( 2) becau se t h ey h ad not been rai sed dur i ng t he s t at e c o ur tpr o c e e di ngs , a nd t hata bs e ntt hate vi de nc e , t he r e w as no ba s i s t o r e butt he s t at e c o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatn o e vi de nc e s upp o r t e d t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s i ne f

fe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e c l ai m . W e o bs e r ve d: Pur s uantt o AE D PA , w e m us tpr e sum e t h ese fact u aldeter m i n ati ons t o b e c or r ec tabs entc l earand c onvi nci ng evi denc e t o t he c ont r ar y. T h e o n l y e v i d e n c e D ia z o ffe r s to re b u t t h e s ta te co u r t’s fin d in g s is t h e ser i es of

af f i da vi t s presented f

or t h e f i rstt i m e t o t h e di st ri ct co u rt. .
. . [W ]e c a n n o t co n sid e r th e m p e r [2 8 U .S .C .] § 2 2 5 4 (e)(2 ), a s th ey co m p ri se “n ew ev i d en ce” th a t w a s n ot p rop erly p rese n ted to t he state cou rt , and t hey do notev i denc e a fac t ualpr edi c at e t hat c o ul d no tha ve b e e n di s c o ve r e d t hr o ugh t he exerci s e o f due di l i ge nc e . W i t ho utt he a f f i da vi t s , D i az ha s fai l ed t o r e butt he p r e s u m p t io n o f

c o r r e c t n e s s th a ta t t a c h e s to th e s t a t e c o u r t ’s f i n d in g s, an d h e cann otm ak e hi s c ase t h at c ou n selw ere c o n s tit u tio n a llyin e ffe c tiv e a t t h e p u n is h m e n t p h a s e o f tr ia l. I d. a t 8 9 0 (e m p h a s is a d d e d , cit a tio n o m itt e d ).N o. 08- 70042

The procedural dispositionof the motio n for evi denti aryhearingw as odd. Pi erce file d 4 the motioninJanuary 199 1, sh or t lyaft er filin g his state court h abe as petitio n. Court docume nts reflect th at the motionwas still pendingi n Nove mber 199 5, wh en Pi erce sought new appointed c oun sel. Th ere was virtu ally no furth er activityon th e do cket untilNovember 200 0, when bothparties filed propo sed findin gs of fact and conclusions of l aw. Th e re cord does not s ho wt ha tth e state h abe as court rul ed o n the motionbefore ruling onth e proposed finding s of fact and conclusions of l aw, but also does not show th at Pi erce’ s counselraised any obj ectio n to submittingpro posed finding s of fact and conclusions of l aw without a rulingonth e pendingmotion. 14 P i erce ackn ow l edg es t h at he fai l ed to exh au stan d to bu i l d an evi den t i ary r e c o r d a s to ju r o rm is c o n d u c t in th e s ta te h a b e a s co u r t b u t a r g u e s th a t t h is fai l ur e s ho ul d b e e xc us e d b e c aus e he s o ugh ta n ev i dent i ar y he ar i ng f r o m t he st ate hab eas courtbu tnev er r eceived one. B u tt h i s argum en ti gn ores t h e fact 4 t hatt he af

f i davi t s t hat Pi erce con t ends t hatt he di st r i c tc our ts houl d have
con sider ed did n ot req u i re a n e vid en ti a ryh ea ri n g a n d w ere i n fa ct av a i l a b l e to h i m bef ore hi s s t ate hab ea s p e tition w as f i l ed. U n der ei t h er § 225 4(b) or § 225 4( e) ( 2) , t h e af

fidavi t s i n sup port w ere proc edu ral l y barred at t h e di st ri ct
c our tl eve l
. Juri st s of reas on w oul d n otf

i nd t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s ul t i m at e de ni al of rel i ef on the i ssue of

j u ror m i scondu ctdeba t able. F or re l a ted re a son s, w e con cl u d e th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s di sc re tion i n ref

u si n g t o gran tan evi den t i ary h eari n g on t h e j u ror m i scondu ct i ss ue. As not ed, ex c epti n narr ow c i r c um st ance s, § 2254( e) (2) b a r s an evi den t i ary h eari n g i n t h e federal di st ri ct court w h ere t h e ap pl i can t h as fai l ed to d ev elop a factu a lba sis for t h e claim i n the s ta te h a b e a s cou rt. Afa i l u re to est ab l i s h a fac t ual ba s i s i s no t e s t ab l i s he d, ho w e ve r , “ unl e s s t he r e i s a l ac k of d il i g e n c e , o rs o m e g r e a t e rfa u lt , a t t r ib u t a b le to th e p r is o n e ro rth e p r is o n e r ’s
cou n sel. ” Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 52 9 U
. S

. at 34 1
. P i erce arg u es th a t his fa i l u re to
e s t ab l i s h a fac t ualb as i s i s e xc us e d be c aus e he r e que s t e d a n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng i n the state h a b ea s cou rt. W e r ej e c t e d p r e c i s e l y t hi s a r gum e nti n D ow t h i t tv. Joh n son , 230 F. 3 d at 75 8. I n D ow t h itt , as he r e , t he pe t i t i o ne rur ge d t hathi s fai l ur e t o de ve l o p t heN o. 08- 70042

15 fac t ualb a s i s f

o r h i s h a b e a s c l a i m s wa s e x c u s e d u n d e r § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) b e c a u s e he
r e q u e s te d b u t w a s d e n ie d e v id e n tia r yh e a r in g s in th e s ta t e h a b e a s co u r t. W e di sagreed, concl u di n g t h at “ [ m ] ere r equ est s f or evi den t i ary h eari n gs w i l lnot suff i ce; t h e peti t i on er m u stbe di l i gen ti n pu rsui n g t h e fact u aldevelo p m e n tof h i s cl a i m . ” Id
. W e ob serv ed tha t t h e p eti ti on er h a d fa i l ed to pre sen t aff i d a vits i n t he s t at e ha be as c o ur tf r o m t he w i t ne s s e s t hathe c l ai m ed w oul d p r o vi de
m at e r i ali nf

o r m at i o n and “ di d notsho w t hatt he y c o ul d no tb e o bt ai ne d a bs e nt
a n o rd er for d i scov ery or a h ea ri n g.” I d. (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d ). W e c o nc l ude d t hatt he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s “ pr o f fe r s ” t o t he s t at e habeas courto f w hatt he
w i tn ess es w ou l d pr ese n t a t a h ea ri n g d i d n ot f u l fi l lthe dil i ge n ce re q u i rem en t, hol di ng t hat“ [ g] i ven t hatt he [ w i t nes se s] w ere w i l l i n g t o t es t i f y ata hea r i ng, [ t h e peti t i on er] coul d easi l y h ave obtai n ed thei r af f i da vi t s. Areasonab l e person i n [petit i on er]’ s p l a ce w ou l d h a ve a t l ea st d on e as m u ch
. ” I d. As i n D o w th itt , we co n c lu d e th a t P i erce ’ s req u est for an ev i d en ti a ryh ea ri n g w a s n ot en ou gh to avoi d t he r e s t r i c t i o ns i m po s e d by § 22 54 ( e ) ( 2)

. By fai l i ng t o at t ac h t h e j u ror a ff i d a vits, w h i ch w ere alre a d y in e xisten ce w h en h e fi l ed h i s p eti ti on i n state habeas c our t , Pi er c e fai l ed t o t ake t he pro per st eps t o suppor ta r eques tf oran ev i d en ti a ryh ea ri n g in fed era ldistri ct cou rt. T h e d i stri ct co u rt d i d n ot ab u se it s di sc r et i on i n re f

usi ng t o ho l d an ev i dent i ar y hear i ng. D . Th e At ki ns C l a i m P i erc e seek s a C O Aas t o w h et h er he i s m en t al l y ret arded an d theref ore i n el i gi bl e f

or executi on un der A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 5 3 6 U .S . 3 0 4 (2 0 0 2 ). P ie r c e ’s argu m en t s f

ocus al m ostexcl u sivel y on w h at Pi erce describes as “ n ew evi den ce” ab o utt he c r e dibi l i t y o f t he St at e ’ s e xp e r tw i t ne s s , D r . G e o r ge D e nko w s ki , w ho
e va l uat e d Pi e r c e i n 2 00 5 i n c o nne c t i o n wi t h hi s st at e c o ur tha be as a ppl i c at i o n. Th e T C C Aref

use d to c r edi tD r . D enkow ski ’ s t es t i m ony i n anot herr ec enthabeas
c a s e , Exp a rte P la ta , N o. A P- 75820, 2008 W L 1512 96 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. Jan. 16, 200 8) , du e t o severalm et h odol og ica l error s. Th e T exas S t ate B oard ofN o. 08- 70042

16 Exam i ne r s o f Ps yc ho l o gi s t s s ubs e que nt l y f i l e d a c o m pl ai nt ag ai ns t D r. D en kow skiw i t h t h e State O f f i ce of A dm i n i st rat i ve H eari n gs rega rdi n g h i s w ork i n t h e P la tac as e , s e e ki ng t o s anc t i o n h i m for i nt e nt i o nal l y m i s ap pl yi ng p s y c h ia tr ic te s tin gm e th o d s . S eeS O A H D o c k e t N o . 5 2 0 -0 9 -2 2 8 2
. Pi e r c e r ai s e s t he fo l l o w i ng ar gum e nt s i n s upp o r to f a n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng a n d COA: 1. As i n P la ta , D r . D enkow skii m p roperl y c ont ended t hat d ep ress i on an d an xiety h a d a su p p ress i ve effect on P i erce ’ s IQ scor e; 2. As i n P la ta , D r . D e n k o w s k i im p r o p e r ly e v a lu a t e d P ie r c e ’s adap t i v e d e f

i c i t s a ndo v e r s t a t e d t he i m p a c to f s o c i o c ul t ur al fact ors on t h ese def

i ci t s; 3
. D r. D en k ow sk ii m p rop erly cr i ti ci ze d the resu l ts of oth er IQ t est s adm i n i st ered t o P i erce as bei n g l ess reli able becau se o nl y c e r t ai n s ubp ar t s w e r e a dm i ni s t e r e d; 4
. D r . D e n k o w s k i fa ile d to in fo r m th e co u r t o f th e “F ly n n E ffe c t,” w h i ch m i gh tha ve art i f i ci al l y in flated P i erce’ s I Q sc ore on t est s ad m i n i st ered i n 197 5 an d 19 76. D r. D en kow skial so fai l ed to i nf

or m t he c our tt hatt hes e s am e t es t s m ay be s t r u c t u r e d s o a s t o o v e r r e p r e s e n tI Q. 5. Th e st at e habeas t r i alc our tm ade c l ear l y e r r oneo us f i ndi ngs of factabou tone of

P i erce’ s expert s, D r. G arn et t , som e of w h ic h w e r e a d o p t e d b yth e T C C Ain it s d e n ia l o f P ie r c e ’s hab e as a ppl i c at i o n. T h e di st ri ctcourtargu ably er red i n concl u di n g t h at n on e of these i ssues m e r i t e d hab e as r e l i e f o r at l e as t an e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng. Acc o r di ngl y, w e g r ant a C O Aon t h e i ssues t h at Pi erce rai ses w i t h res pect t o hi s At ki ns cl ai m . Pier ce i s i n st ructed t o provi de recor d ci t es t h at s h ow w h ere each such i ssue w as rai sed bef ore t h e st ate h abea s court an d f ederal di st ri ct court— or, i f t h e i ssue w as not rai sed i n t h ese f

orum s, t o expl ai n w h y t h e issu e cou l d n otha ve been rai sed t h ere.N o. 08- 70042

17 E . T h e In e ffe c tiv e A s s is ta n c e C la im F i n al l y, P i erce seeks a C O Aas t o w h et h er hi s t ri al c o u n selperf orm ed de f i c i e nt l y dur i ng t he s e nt e nc i ng pha s e b y fai l i ng t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd p r e s e nt
m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e t hathe w as m e nt al l y r e t ar de d, a bus e d a s a ch i l d, a nd suf fer ed an i m pove r i she d upbri ngi ng. Pi er c e al so se eks an evi dent i ar y hear i ng, a r g u in gth a ts u c h a h e a r i n gw o u l d c o n c l u s i v e l ye s t a b l i s h d e fi c ie n c ie s in c o u n s e l’s perf orm an ce. Pier ce argues t h at t h e st ate h abea s court i m properl y den i ed su ch
a h e a r in g , a n d th a t b e c a u s e o f th is im p r o p e rd e n ia l, th e fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t in t urn abus ed i t s di sc r et i on i n fai l i ng t o ho l d an ev i dent i ar y hear i ng. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th a t P ie r c e ’ s in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l cla im di d notpr ovi de a bas i s f orhabeas r el i ef bec ause eve n i f Pi er c e c oul d sho w t hat h i s c ou n selperf

orm ed d ef

i ci en t l y, P i erce coul d n ot e stabl i sh p rej u di ce. S t rickl an dv. W

ash i ngt on , 4 66 U
. S. 6 68 , 6 87 ( 19 84 ) , pr o vi de s t he t w o - pr o ng st an da rd f

or es t abli shi n g i n ef

fect i ve assi st an ce of coun sel
. F i rst , t h e peti t i on er

“ m u st sh ow t h at .
. . coun selm ad e err ors so s eri ou s t h at c ou n selw as not fun cti on i n g as t h e ‘ cou n sel’ gu a ra n teed b y t h e Sixth A m en d m en t. ” Id
. Se c o nd, t h e peti t i on er m u st“ show t h at t h e def i ci en tperf

orm an ce prej u di ced t h e defen se

. . . [w ith ] e r r o r s [th a t] w e r e s o s e r io u s a s to d e p r iv e th e d e fe n d a n t o f a fa irtr ia l,
a tri a lw h ose resu l t i s reli a b l e.” I d. T h e di st ri ctcourtal so noted t h e st an da rd f or es t abli shi n g “ prej u di ce” un der t h e s econd prong : “ [W ] h et h er t h ere i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , abs en t th e er r or s, t he s ent enc er. . . w oul d have concl u ded t h at t h e bal an ce of agg ravati n g an d m i t i gati n g ci rcum st an ces di d n ot
w a rra n t de a th
. ” I

d. a t 6 9 5
. T h e di st ri ctcourtconclu d e d t h at even i f coun selha d i n factrendered defi ci en tperf

orm an ce un der th e firs tprong , P i erce coul d n otshow prej u di ce u n der t he s e c o nd b e c aus e t he s pe c i ali s s ue s po s e d t o t he j ur y ats e nt e nc i ngN o. 08- 70042

The special i ssues were : 5 1 ) Whe th e rPi e rc e ’ sc o n du c tth atc au s e dJ o h n s o n’ sd e athw a sd e lib e r ate and undertaken with the reaso nab le expectationth at the deathof the victim or anoth er would result; and 2) Whetherth ere was a probabilityth at Pi erce would commit future crimin al acts of viole nc e t ha t would c onstitutea continuing threatto so ciet y. T EX . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . ANN ., Art
. 3 7 .0 7 1 (b) (Vern on1 9 8 1 ). See, e.g., Pen ry , 49 2 U .S. at32 0 (Texas special issues did not permit j uryto consi der 6 a n d give fulleff

ect toevidenceof me ntal retard ation , chil dhoo d ab u se); Tennard v. Dretke , 54 2 U. S. 2 7 4 , 2 8 7(2 0 0 4) (s a me , a s to me ntal defe ct); Abd ul-Kab ir v. Quarterman , 55 0 U .S. 23 3, 259(20 07) (same, a s to difficult childho od, lack of self-control, and possibl e n eurological da ma ge) ; Brewer v. Quarterman , 550 U.S. 286, ---, 12 7 S .Ct. 170 6, 1 721 –22(20 07) (same, a s tochil dhoo d ab u se). 18 w oul d n oth ave per m i t t ed t he j ury t o c ons i derorgive ef fec tt o t he e vi denc e t hat Pi e r c e a s s e r t s s ho ul d ha ve b e e n pr e s e nt e d. The di s t r i c tc o ur to bs e r ve d: 5 Th e ev i den ce P i erce cl ai m s w en t u n dev el oped and u n presented— evi den ce of h i s l ow intel l i gen ce, h i s p oor h eal t h as a c hi l d, t he phys i c alabus e he s uf fe r e d att he ha nds o f hi s fat he r , t he e x tre m e p o v e rty in w h ich h e g re w u p , a n d o t h e r e v id e n ce of a si m i l arnat ure— i s al lge n era lm i ti ga ti on ev i d en ce, i
. e., ev i denc e t hat m i ghthave el i c i t ed s ym pat hy orr educ ed hi s gener alm or al cul pa bi l i t y, bu tnot evi den ce di rect l y rel evan tt o t h e speci ali ssues p r e s e n t e d to th e ju r y . A s d is c u s s e d
. . . i n c o n n e c t io n w it h P ie r c e ’s Penry cl ai m , the speci alis sues provi ded the j u ry w i t h no m echa n i sm t o consi der or give ef fectt o such gen eralm i t i gati on evi den ce. Pi e r c e v . Q uar t e r m an , 2008 W L 4445064, at*1 6. The di st r i c tc our thel d t hat “be ca u se th e sp ecial i ssu es p rov i d ed n o m ech a n i sm f or th e j u ryto give effect to
su ch m i ti ga ti n g e vid en ce, i t can n ot be sa i d th a t t h ere i s a re a son a b l e p rob a b i l i ty th a t su ch ev i d en ce w ou l d h a ve ch a n ge d the ou tcom e.” I d. T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s hol di n g i s debatable. A l t h ou gh t h e speci a l i ssues w ou l d n otha ve perm i tte d th e ju ry t o gi ve fu lle f fe c tt o t he t yp e s o f

m i t i ga t i ng e v id e n c e th a t P i e r c e co n te n d s s h o u ld h a v e b e e n in tr o d u c e d , a s w e h a v e h e ld 6 th a t Penry requi res, s e e Ne ls o n v . Q uar t e r m an , 4 7 2 F .3d 2 8 7 , 3 1 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ),N o. 08- 70042

19 t h e speci alissues w ere s u f f i ci en tf or t h e j u ry t o gi ve t h e evi den ce som e effect. Se e , e . g. , Coble v . Q uar t e r m an , 496 F. 3d 430, 447 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) ( obs er vi ng t hat j u ry coul d gi ve som e ef fectt o evi den ce of m en t ali l l n ess an d a tr ou bl ed b a c k g r o u n d th r o u g h d e lib e r a te n e s s s p e c ia l is s u e ); T e nna r d v. D r e t ke , 442 F. 3d 240 , 254 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) ( n ot i n g t h at j u ry coul d gi ve som e ef f ectt o evi den ce of im p a ir e d in te lle c t u a l fu n c tio n in gth r o u g h d e lib e r a te n e s s s p e c ia l is s u e ); Luc as v. Joh n son , 132 F. 3d 1069, 1083 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ( c onc l udi ng t hatj ury c oul d give som e ef fectt o evi den ce of

sch i zoph reni a an d t roub l ed u pb ri n gi n g t h rough f u t u re da n gerousn ess speci ali ssue)

. Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c on cl u si on — t h at t h e om i t t ed
m i t i gat i ng evi denc e co ul d n oth ave pr ej udi c ed t he out c om e bec ause t he j ury had “n o m e c h a n is m ” t o g iv e it e ffe c t— is th e r e fo r e a t le a s t d e b a t a b le
. P ie r c e is ent i t l ed t o a C O Aon t hi s i ss ue. P i er c e m ay ur ge hi s ent i t l em entt o a n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in ga s to in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e a s p a r t o f h is a p p e a l. T h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e i s a n i n d e p e n d e n t b a s i s f o rd e n y i n ga C OA
on P i e r c e ’ s i ne f

fe c t i ve as s i s t anc e c l ai m : t hat Pi e r c e ’ s c o uns e l di d no trender i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce becau se the om i ssi on of the m i t i gati n g evi den ce w as part of a soun d tr i alst rat egy. I n t h e sta t e ha beas court, P i erce’ s l ead coun self rom hi s t hi r d t r i alt es t i f

i ed byaf

f i davi tt hath e had pr ope r l y i nves t i gat ed and w as aw ar e o f

t he m i t i gat i ng e vid en ce butc hos e no tt o i nt r oduc e i tbe c ause he had pu rsued a theory of

inn ocence an d m i si den t i f i cat i on du ri n g t h e gu i l t/i n n ocence ph ase an d fe a re d t h at he w ou l d l ose c redi bi l i t y w i t h t h e j u ry i f he cha n ged st rat egy to pu rsue a m i t i gati on t h eory atsentenc i ng. Pi e r c e ’ s coun seli n t rodu ced evi denc e a s t o l ac k of

f ut ure danger ous nes s butavo i d e dp r es ent i ng evi denc e t hat
w o ul d t e nd t o a d m i t b ut e x c us e t he c r i m e . The s t a t e ha b e a s c o ur t found t hat Pi e r c e ’ s c o uns e ldi d no tr e nde ri ne f fect i ve a s s i s t anc e a nd h ad o m i t t e d t he
m itig a tin ge v id e n c e a s p a r t o f a “p la u s ib le tr ia l s tr a te g y .” Th e f ede r aldi st r i c tc our t di d notdes c r ibe oraddr es s t he s t at e habe as court’ s groun ds f

or deny i n g rel i ef on t h e i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce c l ai m . Th eref ore,N o. 08- 70042

20 on t hi s m ot i on f

orC O A , w e do n oth ave t he benef i tof a di st r i c tc our tf

i ndi ng as t o w h et h er t h e st ate hab eas court ’ s con cl u si on w as ob j ect i vel y u n reasona bl e or a vi ol ati on of

cl earl y- est abli shed Su prem e C ou rtl aw . N or has P i erce, w h ose m o t i o n f o rCO A pr o pe r l y c hal l e nge d o nl y t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o ns , ha d t he
o p p o r tu n ity to b r ie f th e is s u e fo rt h is c o u r t. A c c o r d in g ly , w e d o n o t d e c id e a t t h is t i m e w h et h er t h e st ate hab eas court ’ s f i n di n gs provi de an i n dep en den tbasi s f or th e d en i a lof h a b ea s reli ef. T h e Sta te m a y reu rg e t h i s a rg u m en t i n i ts ap p ell a te br i ef i ng. I V . Con cl usi on P i erce’ s requ estfora C O Ai s G R A N T E D as t o t h e At ki ns and i nef fec t i ve as si st ance of

c ounse lc l ai m s. The par t i es ar e di r ec t ed t o s ubm i ts uppl em ent al br i ef i ng on t hes e c l ai m s i n advance of or alar gum ento n a s c hedul e t o b e e s t ab l i s he d b y t he Cl e r k. Pi e r c e ’ s r e que s t f o ra CO A i s o t he r w i s e D EN I ED
. The S t ate’ s ap pea lof t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of rel i ef un der Penry w i l lbe add ress ed af t er orala rgum en t , d u ri n g w h i ch w e w i l lhea r argum en tas t o P i erce’ s Penry , At ki ns , an d i n ef

fect i ve assi st an ce c l ai m s.N o. 08- 70042

D E N N IS , C i rcu i t Ju d ge , con cu rringi n pa rt, dissen ti n g in pa rt: I c o nc ur i n the deni alo f a CO A on Pi e r c e ’ s e xp e r te vi de nt i ar y c l ai m a nd h is ju r y m i s c o n d u c tc la im . I a ls o c o n c u rin g r a n t in ga C O Ao n P ie r c e ’s in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l cla im a n d h is A t ki n s cl a i m , bu t I w ri te separatel y t o p ro v id e m y reasons f or granti n g a C O Aon the A t ki n s c l a i m. F in a ll y , I r e s p e c t f

u l l yd is s e n tfr o m th e m ajo r it y ’s d e n ia l o f a C O Ao n P ie r c e ’s B rady c la im fo rth e re a s o n s s e t fo r th b e lo w . I . Th e A tkin s C l a i m P ie r c e h a s n e v e rb e e n g r a n te d a n e v id e n tia r ya d v e r s a r yh e a r in go n h is
m e n t a l r e t a r d a t io n v e l n o n . T h e q u e s t io n o f w h e t h e rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s de c i s i o ns i n A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 53 6 U
. S. 3 04 ( 20 02 ) , a nd For d v
. W ai nw r ight , 477 U .S . 3 9 9 (19 8 6 ), requ i re a c ou rtt o condu cta l i ve evi den t i ary h eari n g bef ore decl ari n g a defend an tw h o presents evi den ce of m en t alretardati on el i gi bl e f or th e d e a th p e n a lty is r e s n o v a a n d m a yb e p r o p e r lyp r e s e n te d b yth is ca s e . S ee Hal lv . Q uar t e r m an , 5 3 4 F .3 d 3 6 5 , 3 8 3 -8 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (H ig g in b o th a m , J ., c o n c u r r in gin p a r t a n d d is s e n tin gin p a r t). I n t he s t at e pr o c e e di ngs , t hr e e m e nt alr e t ar da t i o n e xp e r t s , D r . K aufm an, D r . G a r n e tt , a n d D r . R o s in , e x p r e s s e d th e iro p in io n s b ya ffid a v its th a t P ie r c e is
m en t al l y ret arded
. T h e st ate h abea s court cat egori cal l y excl u ded t h e op in i on o f D r . G ar ne t to n t he b as i s t hathe w as no tl i ce ns e d i n t he St at e o f Te xa s , a nd t hus i ne l i gibl e t o o pi ne o n m e nt alr e t ar da t i o n i n c i vi lcom m i t m en t s und e rt he P e rs o n s w i t h M en t alR et arda t i on A ct( “ P M R A ” ) , T ex. H eal t h & Sa fet y C ode § 591
. 003 ( 16). F u rt h er, tha tcou rtfoun d that onl y t h e st ate’ s m en t alret arda t i on exp ert , D r. D en kow ski , presented a “ credibl e af f i da vi t
. ” O n t h e st rength of D r. D en kow ski ’ s af

f i da vi t ’ s c ri t i ci sm of

peti t i on er’ s expert s, t h e st ate hab eas court di s r e ga r de d a s i m m at e ri al t he o pi ni o ns o f a l lt hr e e o f

pe t i t i o ne r ’ s e xp e r t s a nd
ac c e pt e d Dr
. D e nko w s ki ’ s o pi ni o n t hatPi e r c e i s no tm e nt al l y r e t ar de d. Exc e pt fo rD r . D e n k o w s k i’ s cr itic is m o f th e d e fe n s e e x p e r ts ’o p in io n s , t h e s ta te c o u r t d id
n o te x p l a i n wh yh i s “ a f f i d a v i t[ wa s ] c r e d ib l e ” a n d t h e i r s we r e no t
. Th e T CCAN o. 08- 70042

“[Th e PMRA] is inapplicableinth e Atk inscontext, and the state court’s co nclusio n to 1 the contrarywas clearlyerrone ous. ‘The PMRA byit s own te r m s , is irrelevantto the app licationof Atk ins . For E ighth Amen dment purpose s, it neitherdefines mental retar datio n nor -- morerel evantly-- e stablishe s who maydia gnose me ntal retar datio n.’” H a ll , 534 F.3 d at 971 (quo ting Inre Hearn , 41 8 F .3d 4 44, 447(5th Cir. 2 005)). The Court of C rimin al Appe als has also recogniz ed th at it is erron eou s to exclu de a mental retardation expert’s opinion s on th e gro u n dsth at th e expe rti s notlice n se d inT exa s. SeeE x pa rte Lewis , 22 3 S .W.3d 372 , 37 4 (Tex . C rim. App. 20 06) (Cochran, J ., concurring) (explainin g that th e exclusio n of an expert’s opiniononth e groun d th at he is not licen sed in the Stateof Texas under Tex
. Health& Safety Code § 53 1.00 3(16) is of no “legal significance in deciding wheth er [an] applicant i s ment ally retarded for purposes of eligibilityfor the death penaltyunder Atk ins v. V ir gin iaor Ex par te Brise no .”). 22 r ej ec t ed t he s t at e habe as c our t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatD r . G ar net tw as notqual i f i ed as
an At ki ns m ent alr et ar dat i on e xper tbu tadopt ed al lof t hatc our t ’ s ot herf

i ndi ngs an d concl u si on s. A l t h ou gh t h e T C C Arec ogn i zed that th e st ate hab eas court cl earl y erred i n t h i s r espect , i tdi d n ota sses s t h e prej u di ce i tcaused P i erce or 1 t ak e an y act i on t o rect i f y t h e error . T h e di st ri ct court al so r ef u sed t o gran tP i erce an evi den t i ary h eari n g an d ap proved t h e st ate courts ’deter m i n ati on t h at Pi erce i s n otm en t al l y ret arded a n d t h eref ore d eath- pen al t y el i gi bl e b ased p ri m ari l y on D r . D e n k o w s k i’ s a ffid a v it. Bec aus e Pi e r c e ha s ne ve r be e n gr ant e d an ad ve r s ar y e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng on w h et h er he i s m en t al l y ret arded , becau se di f ferent st ate j u dg es presi ded over t h e st ate capi t alm u rder c ase an d the st ate A t ki n s h abea s proceedi n gs, becau se t he s t at e m e nt alr e t ar da t i o n r u l i n g s we r e b as e d o nl y o n di am e t r i c al l y c o nf l i c t i ng af f i da vi t s, an d because of t h e st ate c ou rt s’un rect i f i ed errori n hol di n g t h at D r. G ar ne t tw as notqual i f i e d a s a m e nt alr e t ar da t i o n e xp e r t , i ti s de ba t ab l e t hatt he st ate At ki ns p r o c e e d in gd id n o t a ffo r d P ie r c e d u e p r o c e s s o ra fu ll a n d fa ir h eari n g on hi s At ki ns c l a i m. T h i s c ase i s s u bstanti al l y an al ogou s t o Ha ll
. I n Ha ll , w e n o te d th a t it
m i gh tbe possibl e f

or a st ate court t o adj u dg e a pri soner not m en t al l y ret arded based on a p ap er t ri alw h en t h e sam e j u dg e presi ded over th e c a p i t alm u rder t r i a la n d t h e s t a t e h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g s . 5 3 4 F
. 3 d a t9 7 1
. A l t h o u g h t h e s a meN o. 08- 70042

I n Hal l , w e notedthat the re isa “cr ucialdist inct ion”be tw een cas esin w hich w e have 2 foun d paper hearin gs adequat e b ecau se th e capital murder trial ju dgean d th e state h abe as ju dgewere onean d th e sa me, and cases such as Pierce ’s inwhich diffe r en tstat e j udges han dled eachpro ceeding . S ee Hal l , 5 3 4F .3 d at 3 7 1 ; seeals o id. at 372(critici zingth e di strict court’s reliance on “theconflicting expert opinion s of psychologists, a sserted in affidavits u n airedinc ourtan d shieldedf ro m cro ss exa min ation”) ; Perillov. J ohnson , 79F .3d 4 41, 447 (5thC ir. 1 996) (finding the state court did not provide a full and fair hearin g in determinin g the petitioner’s cl aim on paper alo ne because “[i]n thein stant case, the ju dge s were differe nt.

. . . Bec ause the ju dge in the state hab eas corpu s procee ding was not the trial j udge, h e could not com p are the informatio n presented in the variou s affi davits a gainst his own firsthand knowle dge of

th e trial”). 23 j u dg e ha d p resi ded over bot h st ate proceedi n gs, w e hel d that H al lw as enti t l ed t o a fede r al adver sa r i alev i d en ti ar y At ki ns h ea ri n g, beca u se th e sta te cou rts
er r oneo usl y hel d t hat a de fens e expe r tw as notqual i f i ed (f ort he s am e r eas on as D r. G arn et tw as foun d u n qu al i f i ed) an d becau se t h e At ki ns deci si on w as deci ded
s ho r t l y bef

o r e t he s t at e ha be as pr o c e e di ngs a nd d r as t i c al l y c hang e d t he p ri n ci p l es a n d s ta n d a rd s ap p l i ca b l e to m en tal retard a ti on -dea th eli gibil i ty d e te r m in a tio n s . Se e i d. at370- 72. Li ke t he pe t i t i o ne ri n Ha ll , P ie r c e d ilig e n tly d e v e lo p e d th e fa c t u a l b a s is fo rh is cla im in s ta te co u r t b yco n s is te n tly ra is in gth e is s u e t h a t h e is m e n ta lly ret arded , an d su bm i t t i n g evi den ce t o t h at ef fect–incl u di n g t h e op i n i on s of t h ree e xp e r t s t hathe i s m e nt al l y r e t ar de d. The s t at e c o ur tdi d no tpr o vi de a f ul la nd fa irh e a r in go n th e cla im : T h e s ta te co u r t d e n ie d h is cla im o n a “p a p e rh e a r in g ,” di f fer e n tj u dg es presi ded over hi s At ki ns c l ai m a nd c ap i t alm ur de rt r i al , a nd At ki ns w as dec i ded l ong af t erhi s or i gi nalt r i al
. Fi nal l y, i ti s beyo nd doubtt hat 2 Pi e r c e wo u l d b e e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f i f h e p r o v e s t h a th e i s me n t a l l yr e t a r d e d
. By fai l i n g t o hol d an evi den t i ary h eari n g, t h e di st ri ctcourtm ay h ave over l ooked po t e nt i ale r r o r s i n t he s t at e cou rt ’ s r e s o l ut i o n o f t he c l ai m , i nc l udi ng: ( 1) t he excl u si on of

peti t i on er’ s expert ’ s opi n i on on the groun d that he w as not l i censed i n t h e State of

T exas ba sed on t h e s a mes t at ut e a ti s s ue i n Ha ll , a n e r r o rt he TC CA r e c o g ni z e d b utfai l e d t o e f fe c t i ve l y c ur e ; ( 2) t he s t at e c o ur tdi s r e ga r de d t he opi ni o ns o f pe t i t i o ne r ’ s t hr e e e xp e r t s i n fav o r o f t he s t at e ’ s e xp ert , D r.N o. 08- 70042

SeeHa ll , 53 4F. 3 d at3 7 1 n .2 7 ; id. at 376 (Higginb otha m, J., concurringinpart and 3 di sse ntin ginp art); Ex pa rte Pla ta , No
. 6 9 3 1 4 3 -B( 3 5 1 stDi st
. C t. S ep t. 2 8 , 2 0 0 7), aff’d , No. AP7 5 8 2 0 , 2 0 0 8WL1 5 1 2 9 6(T ex . C ri m. App . J a n. 16, 20 0 8); Tex. StateBd. of E xaminersof Psy cholo gists v. Denko wski , 5 2 0 -0 9 -2 8 8 2 (T ex . St ateOf ficeof Adm in
. Hr g s)

. 24 D enkow ski , w i t houtm aki ng any af f i r m at i ve f

i ndi ngs as t o w hy D r . D e nko w s ki
w as c r e dibl e (i ns t e adf i ndi ng o nl y t hatpe t i t i o ne r ’ s e xp e r t s w e r e no t ) ; a nd ( 3) t he
s t a t e c o u r tfa il e d to a c c o u n t fo rth e m a n yp r o b le m s w it h D r . D e n k o w s k i’s
m et h ods an d op i n i on s i n assess i n g m en t alretardati on in d eath row peti t i on ers, e r r o r s r e c o gni z e d b y t hi s c o ur t , t he Te xa s s t at e c o ur t s , a nd t he s t at e l i c e ns i ng aut hor i t i es . Pri nci pal l y, given t he l ac k of i dent i t y be t w ee n t he s t at e c api t al 3
m u rder tri alj u dg e a n d the At ki ns pa pe r t r i alj udg e , a nd t he e r r o ne o us f i ndi ng t h at D r. G arn et tw as not qua l i f i ed , P i erce i s enti t l ed to a C O Aon h i s At ki ns c la im a n d h is re q u e s t fo ra n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in g . I I . Th e B rad

y C la im The Supr e m e Cour t he l d i n Bra dy v . Mar y l and , 373 U
. S. 83 ( 1963) , t hat t he D ue Pr o c e s s Cl aus e o f t he Fo ur t e e nt h A m e ndm e ntpr o hibi t s “ t he sup pressi on by the prosecuti on of evi den ce favorab l e t o an accused u pon request

. . . w her e t he evi denc e i s m at er i al ei t her t o gui l tort o puni shm ent , i r r es pec t i ve of t h e g oo d fa i th o r b a d fa i th of th e p rose cu ti on . ” I d. at 87
. A ccord i n gly, to
es t abl i sh a B rady vi ol a ti on , t he pet i t i onerm usts how : ( 1) t hatt he e vi denc e a t i ss ue i s favor abl e t o t he ac c use d; ( 2) t hat t he e vi denc e has be en s uppres se d by t h e State, ei t h er w i l f u l l y or i n ad vert en t l y; an d ( 3) t h at he ha s been p rej u di ced
a s a r e s u lt, m e a n in g th a t th e e v id e n c e is m a te r ia l. Un i t e d St at e s v . Si pe , 388 F. 3d 471, 4 7 7 (5th C i r . 2004) ( c i t i ng St r i c kle rv . G r e e ne , 527 U
. S. 263, 281- 82 (1 9 9 9 ); Bra dy , 3 7 3 U .S . a t 8 7 ). A s t h e di st ri ct co u rt c o n clu d e d , th e p ro se cu tion ’ s c a se a g a inst P i erce rest ed
on t h e t est i m on y of

i t s fou r iden t i f

yi n g w i t n esses , i n cl u di n g t h e t w o Sa n ders brot h ers, w h o sp l i ta $ 1, 000 rew ard f or i den t i f

yi n g P i erce–a factt h at w as nev er di scl osed t o the defense a n d t h eref ore su pp ress ed. Th e G overnm en t , m oreover,N o. 08- 70042

25 doe s notc ont es tt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s hol di ng t hatt hi s i m peac hm entev i denc e w as fa v o r a b le to P ie r c e . T h u s , th e o n lyd e b a ta b le q u e s tio n is w h e t h e rth is
s upp r e s s e d ev i de nc e w as m at e r i al
. Jur i s t s of re as o n co ul d d e ba t e w he t he rt he
e vi de nc e w as m at e r i alb e c aus e i tc al l e d i nt o do ubtt he c r e dibi l i t y o f t w o o f t he st ate’ s f ou r i den t i f

yi n g w i t n esses , an d I th eref ore di ssent f

rom t h e den i alof P i erce’ s app l i cat i on f or a C O Aon h i s Bra dy cla im
. E yew i t ne s s i m p e a c hm e nte v i d e nc e i s p a r t i c ul a r l yi m p o r t a ntwhe r e , as h ere, t h ere w as l i t t l e or n o p h ysi calev i den ce an d the prosecuti on ’ s c ase res t ed sol el y on t h e w i t n ess’i den t i f i cat i on of t h e shooter- robber. T h ere w ere a nu m ber
o f pr o bl e m s w i t h t he Sand e r s br o t he r s ’ i ni t i al , pr e - r e w ar d i de nt i f i c at i o n ( for e x a m p le , o n ly o n e b r o t h e rs a w th e r o b b e r y , t h e yin it ia ll yid e n t if ie d P ie r c e ’s b r ot her , Jam es Pi er c e, as t he r obbe r , but t hey c hanged t hei r i dent i f i c a ti on to A n th o n yP ie r c e a fte rD e r w in B a n k e tt to ld th e m th a t J a m e s P ie r c e w a s n o t in H ou st on t h at da y)

. T h e j u ry reasona bl y coul d hav e di scr edite d th e Sa n ders’ t est i m on y h ad i t been i n f orm ed t h at t h ey received t w o- t h i rds of a $1, 000 st ateappro ved r ew ar d f

ort hei rt es t i m ony. T he i dent i f i c at i ons of

A nt hony Pi er c e b y t h e f ou r w i t n esses w ou l d hav e been m ore vu l n erabl e t o cr oss- exam i n ati on : t h ey m ade t hei ri dent i f

i c at i on af

t ert he s t r es sful r obbe r y- m urde ri n co nt extof an a rg u a b l y su gg estive live l i n eu p con tain i n g P i erce as th e d i sti n ctive l y sm a l l est, you n gestp erson, p l aced i n the N o. 1 posi t i on . Th u s, t h e i m pea chm en tof t w o of t he s t at e ’ s f

o ure ye w i t ne s s e s r e as o nab l y c o ul d ha ve ha d a de va s t at i ng e f fect
u p o n th e p r o s e c u tio n ’ s e n tir e ca s e . S ee Li nds ey v . Ki ng , 76 9 F
. 2 d 10 3 4 , 10 4 2 ( 5 th C i r. 198 5) (rej ect i n g an “ ari t h m et i calapp roach” t o Bra dy

- t ai n t ed eyew i t n ess i den t i f i cat i on s because “posi t i ve i den t i f i cat i on b y t w o un sha ken w i t n esses pos se ss es m any t i m es t he pow erof s uch an i dent i f

i c at i on by one onl y, and t hat t he des t r uct i on by c r os s- exam i nat i on o f t he c r edibi l i ty of o ne o f t w o c r uci al
w i t n esses — even i f

t h e ot h err e m ai ns unt o uc he d— m ayha ve c o ns e que nc e s f o rt he
c a s e e x te n d in gfa rb e y o n d th e d is c r e d itin go f h is o w n te s tim o n y .”).N o. 08- 70042

26 T h e r e fo r e , b e c a u s e r e a s o n a b le ju r is ts c o u ld d e b a te w h e th e ra ju r yw o u ld h ave f ou n d thi s evi den ce s o i m pea chi n g as t o d iscr e di tt h e i den t i f i cat i on of Pi e r c e a s t he s ho o t e r - r o bb e r , I respec t f ul l y di s s e ntf

r o m Par tI I I
. A of

t he
m aj o r i t y o pi ni o n.