IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 92-2720

JOSEPH BENNARD NICHOLS,

Petitioner-Appellee,

Cross-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

Respondent-Appellant,

Cross-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

November 20, 1995

Before GARWOOD, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

Pet itioner-appellee, cross-appellant Joseph Bennard Nichols

(Nichols) was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

After exhausting his Texas state court remedies, Nichols sought a

writ of habeas corpus in the district court below and the court

granted relief. Respondent-appellant (Respondent), the director of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, now a ppeals to this

Court. Nichols cross-appeals the district court’s denial of1 Nichols’ statement (Nichols did not testify) says “we”—he and

Williams—then shot at Shaffer. Nichols’ and Williams’ statements

were given October 17, 1980, after their arrests earlier that day.

Williams’ statement menti ons only Nichols shooting at this time.

Williams’ testimony at Nichols’ trial is that Nichols drew his gun

first, that Williams then drew his, each pointing them at Shaffer;

that Nichols fired his gun; that Williams then pulled the trigger

2 certain of th e remainder of his claims. We affirm in part and

reverse the district court’s grant of habeas corpus relief.

Facts and Proceedings Below

About 9:00 a.m. on the morning of October 13, 1980, Nichols,

Willie Ray Williams (Williams), Charlotte Parker (Parker), and

Evelyn Harvey (Harvey) drove to a spot in front of an apartment

building near Joseph’s Delicatessen and Grocery in Houston, Texas.

Nichols and Williams mutually intended to rob this establishment,

Nichols having suggested it as a target. Williams was armed with

a .380 semi-automatic pis tol; Nichols had a snub-nosed .38

revolver. Parker parked the car and Nichols and Williams got out

and entered the deli. After entering, Nichols and Williams first

went t o the back of the store, and then approached the counter.

Nichols got a corndog. Williams set a quart of beer on the counter

near the cash register. Behind the counter was deli employee

Claude Shaffer, Jr. ( Shaffer). Nichols, and then Williams, each

drew their respective pistols and pointed them at Shaffer.

When Shaffer saw the guns he began to bend over or squat down.

Nichols then said something to the effect of “don’t go for the gun”

or “don’t be doing it.” Nichols then shot at Shaffer, and

immediately thereafter Williams pulled the trigger on his gun, but

it is unclear whether it then discharged. 1 Shaffer then eitheron his gun, but nothing happened and it did not discharge

(Williams’ testimony at his own trial does not mention his pulling

t he trigger on his gun at this time). Williams testified at

Nichols’ trial that Nichols fired only once and that “he [Nichols]

was aiming at the man [Shaffer]” and “wasn’t aiming it behind him

or somewhere else or aiming it at the floor or anything” but “was

aiming at that man.” However, Williams testified that he thought

Nichols missed Shaffer because Shaffer, who was squatting, did not

go down and Williams saw no blood.

Cindy Johnson (Johnson), one of the two other deli employees

then on duty, testified that at this time Nichols shot first, but

that Williams also then shot, and that in all t hree, or possibly

two, shots were fired at that time. She said that after these

shots Shaffer collapsed and there was blood on his head.

James Rivera (Rivera), standing at a nearby bus stop, saw Nichols and Williams enter the deli, shortly thereafter heard two

or three noises like “backfires,” turned, and then saw Nichols and

Williams run out of the deli.

Nichols’ statement says “We pulled our guns on the dude behind

the cash register and told him to put the money in the sak [sic].

The man behind the counter started bending over behind the counter

. . . and then he came up with a pistol . . . so we reacted and

shot.” Williams’ testimony at Nichols’ trial was that after

Nichols and he pulled their guns on Shaffer, Shaffer bent down and

came up with a gun from under the counter, pointed it at Williams,

whereupon Nichols fired; Shaffer, according to Williams’ testimony,

ne ver fired (and there is no evidence that he did). At his own

trial, Williams testified that “before he [Shaffer] got it [the

g un] all the way up, Joe [Nichols] fired” and then Shaffer “went

down” in “a squatting position.” Johnson testified that she was

watching Shaffer, who was looking at her, after Nichols and

Williams had pointed their guns at him and that Shaffer never touched a gun and did not reach for a gun; she admitted, however,

that in an earlier sworn statement she had said that after “one of

the men pulled a gun” Shaffer, who kept a gun under the counter,

“reached for his gun and both of the black men shot Claude.” Other

evidence showed that the gun, a .45 semi-automatic pistol, belonged

to another deli employee, and was found just after the robbery in

its accustomed place on a shelf under the counter, wi th a fullyloaded clip in the handle but no shell in the chamber; there were

no fingerprints on it (Williams testified that when he went back in

and got the cash box, he looked for Shaffer’s gun but did not see

it). No .45 caliber fired bullets or empty shell casings were

found.

3 fell or squatted down behind the counter. Nichols and Williams ran

to the door. Nichols exited. Williams either exited or partially

exited and then, according to his testimony at Nichols’ trial,2 At his trial Williams testified that when he and Nichols ran

into each other exiting the deli: “I attempted to go out the door,

coming behind Joe [Nichols], and he [Nichols] turned to me and said

shoot—shoot.” Williams, being then asked “And what did you do,

sir?”, replied “I just turned and shot.”

3 Rivera (see note 1, s upra ) testified that after he saw

Nichols and Williams run out of the deli, Willia ms then, gun in

hand, just in front of the deli door, “looked like he raised his

hand and aimed the gun at me”; Rivera t urned away in fright, and

when he looked back both Nichols and Williams were gone; he then

heard another shot and saw Williams run out of the deli with “a

strong box” in his hand; Williams dropped the box, picked it up,

and ran off.

4 turned and fired once at Shaffer, who was still squatting behind

the counter. Williams testified that Shaffer fell back, that he

(Williams) wen t behind the counter to Shaffer, turned him over,

grabbed the deli’s cash box, and ran out of the deli, carrying his

gun and the cash box. 2 He was picked up by Parker and Harvey, got

into the car with them, and they drove around the side of the deli

building where they saw Nichols, who then got in the car with them.

Harvey testified that Nichols told them “he had shot the man” and

“he thought he shot him i n the chest,” and that Williams said he

had run back into the deli and shot the man. Parker testified that

Nichols said “I think I hit him i n the chest,” and that Williams

said “he [Williams] shot the man in the shoulder.” 3 A few days

later, Williams, Nichols, Parker, and Harvey were arrested.

The testimony of the Harris County Medical Examiner, Dr.

Espinola, established without contradiction that Shaffer died from

a single gunshot wound that entered his “left upper back about

seven and three fourths [inc hes] to the left of the midline and

t hree and one half inches below the top of the should er” and4 Nichols’ gun was apparently never recovered. His statement

says that after the robbery and before his arrest he had given it

back to the individual—neither whose name nor address he knew—from

whom he had borrowed it.

5 exited SQ

witho ut hitting any bones or “hard objects” within the

body SQ "on the right side of the chest, 18 and one half inches from

the right of the midline and 11 inches below the top of the

shoulder.” The wound would have caused “almost immediate

disability” or “collapse.” Shaffer also had a superficial two and

a quarter inch slanting laceration on the right side of his head,

which was “consistent with a grazing type of gunshot wound” and

“could also be consistent with a person that hit their head on the

corner of an object or anything like that in a fall.” The head

wound was not disabling. No bullet or bullet fragment was found in

or on Shaffer’s body. Two empty .380 cartridge cases—ejected from

Williams’ pistol—were found in the deli, as was also a whole .380

brass-jacketed projectile or bullet , which had been fired from

Williams’ weapon. A whole, unfired .380 brass-jacketed bullet and

cartridge (with firing pin indentation on the car tridge rim) was

found just outside the deli door. Lead bullet fragments were found

on the inside of the deli door and near there on the floo r along

with brass jacket fragments. Also found in the deli—in a stack of

comic books behind the counter—was a whole lead bullet that had

been fired from a .38-caliber weapon. This was a revolver-type

bullet that had never been jacketed. 4

In January 1981, Williams pleaded guil ty to a charge of5 The indictment alleged that Williams “did while in the course

of committing and attempting to commit the robbery of Claude

Shaffer, Jr., hereafter styled the Complainant, intentionally cause

the death of the Complainant by shooting the Complainant with a

gun.”

6 Article 37.071(b) then provided:

“(b) On conclusion of the presentation of the

evidence, the court shall submit the following issues to

the jury:

(1) whether the conduct of the defendant that caused

the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and

with the rea sonable expectation that the death of the

deceased or another would result;

(2) whether there is a probability that the

defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that

would constitute a continuing threat to society; and

6 capital murder of Shaff er, 5 and, accordingly, the trial court

directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty at the

guilt/innocence phase of his trial. As evidence of his guilt, the

state presented Williams’ written confession, as well as the

testimony of several witnesses including Dr. Espinola. Pursuant to

the court’s direction, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. At

the subsequent punishment phase of W illiams’ trial, the defense

presented Williams’ testimony and the testimony of five witnesses

concerning Williams’ nonviolent character. The defense also called

Nichols during the punishment phase, but Nichols asserted his Fifth

Amendment privilege and declined to testify. The punishment charge

included no instruction respecting the law of parties. The jury

ret urned a verdict at the punishment phase of Williams’ trial

answering in the affirmative each of the three special issues then

provided for by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071(b). 6 Pursuant to(3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct

of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable

in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.”

7 The indictment alleged that Nichols “did while in the course

of committing and attempting to commit robbery, intentionally cause

the death of Claude Shaffer, Jr., hereafter styled the Complainant,

by shooting the Complainant with a gun.”

8 Williams' testimony at Nichols' first trial did not, however,

include that referenced in note 2, supra

. Nichols did not testify

during either phase of the July 1981 trial.

9 Texas Penal Code art. 7.01 provides:

“ § 7.01. Parties to Offenses

(a) A person is criminally responsible as a party to

an offense if the offense is committed by his own

conduct, by the conduct of anothe r for which he is

criminal responsible, or by both.

(b) Each party to an offense may be charged with

commission of the offense.

(c) All traditional distinctions between accomplices

a nd principals are abolished by this section, and each

party to an offense may be charged and convicted without

alleging that he acted as a principal or accomplice.”

Tex. Penal Code art. 7.02 provides:

7 art. 37.071(e), Williams was accordingly sentenced to death. His

c onviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. W illiams v.

State , 674 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

Nichols was also indicted for the capital murder of Shaffer. 7

In July 1 981, Nichols was tried before a jury on his plea of not

guilty. Williams testified as a defense witness at the

guilt/innocence stage of this trial, and his testimony was

generally consistent with his prior testimony and statement. 8 The

jury charge at the guilt/innocence stage included instructions on

the Texas law of parties. 9 Based in large part on Williams’“ § 7.02. Criminal Responsibility for Conduct of Another

(a) A person is criminally responsible for an

offense committed by the conduct of another if:

. . .

(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the

commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages,

directs, aids, or a ttempts to aid the other person to

commit the offense;

. . .

(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to

commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of

the conspirators, all conspirators are guil ty of the

felony actually committed, though having no inte nt to

commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of

the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been

anticipated as a result of the ca rrying out of the

conspiracy.”

Texas law has long recognized that the law of parties is

applicabl e to a case and may be properly charged on if raised by

the evidence even if not alleged in the indictment. P itts v

. State

, 569 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Crank v. State

, 761 S.W.2d 328, 351 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Montoya v. State , 810

S.W.2d 160, 165 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied

, 112 S.Ct. 426

(1991). Indeed, this was the Texas law well prior to the enactment

(in 1 973) of arts. 7.01 and 7.02. S ee Pitts at 900; Frias v.

State

, 376 S.W.2d 764, 765 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (“‘The acts which

make the defendant a principal need not be alleged in the

indictment. A principal offender may be charged directly with the

commission of the offense although it may not have actually been

committed by him . . .’”).

8 testimony, the defense argued that the fatal shot was fired by

Williams from the deli door when he came back in and got the cash

box, and that Nichols was not guilty und er the law of parties

because the planned robbery was o ver and Williams was acting

independently. The state argued that Williams’ testimony that he

shot Shaffer from the door when he came back in was not worthy of

belief “because he’s got to shoot through the cash register and all9

that junk to get here.” The state also argued that Nichols told

Harvey that “he shot first, that he shot the man in the chest, in

the chest area, the body, not in the head, not in the leg, not in

the a rm, but in the chest area, the body. That’s what the

defendant did.” However, the main thrust of the state’s argument

was that regardless of who fired the fatal shot, and regardless of

whether Williams’ testimony was credited, Nichols was guilty under

the law of parties. The jury returned a verdict finding Nichols

guilty of capital murder. The punishment stage of the trial then

ensued, testimony was presented by the state and the defense, and

the case was submitted to the jury on the three statutory special

issues (see note 6, supra ). The punishment charge included no

instruction on the law of parties. After considerable

deliberation, the jury foreman announced that the jury had arrived

at a verdict on two of the special issues, and te ndered to the

court a verdict form in which the first and third special issues

were each answered “yes,” and the second special issue (future

dangerousness) was not answered. The court ruled the verdict was

incomplete, refused to accept it, and returned the jury for further

deliberations. The jury eventually sent a note stating “the jury

is still unable to reach a verdict on the remaining special issue.”

Thereafter, defense counsel moved for a mistrial because the jury

could not reach a verdict. The court explained to Nichols

personally that if a mistrial were declared then the matter would

be retried before another jury. After ascertaining that Nichols

understood and that he personally requested and moved for a10 Nichols did not testify at either stage of his February 1982

trial.

10 mis trial, the court, on July 31, 1981, called the jury back in,

announced that a mistrial had been declared, and formally

discharged the jury.

The a ssistant district attorney trying the case thereafter

interviewed some of the jurors and, as the district court below

found, “learned from those jurors that whether or not Nichols was

the ‘triggerman’ had caused problems for the jury in considering

the death penalty.” Nichols v. Collins , 802 F.Supp. 66, 75 (S.D.

Tex. 1992).

In February 1982, Nichols was tried before another jury on the

same indictment. Generally the same evidence was presented as at

his f irst trial in July 1981. The prosecutor was the same as in

tha t first trial. In the guilt/innocence phase, Williams was

called as a defense witness but claimed his Fifth Amendment

privilege and refused to testify. The defense then put in evidence

Williams’ testimony as given at Nichols’ first trial. 1 0 At the

close of the evidence on the guilt/innocence stage of the trial,

the trial court extensively instructed the jury on the Texas law of

parties (see note 9, supra ) such that the jury could, depending on

what else it found, find Nichols guilty as charged either for

personally having fired the fatal shot or for the fatal shot fired

by Williams, if that was done pursuant to and in furtherance of

their conspiracy to rob the deli and should have been anticipated11 The charge also submitted the lesser included offense of

murder.

12 Thus, for example, the prosecutor argued:

“This lawsuit, if you really boil it down, concerns itself with parties, the law of parties given to you in

number five and number six of this charge. Note that in

parties to be guilty of capital murder as a party to it,

a defendant does not have to fire the fatal shot that

killed somebody.” (Emphasis added).

The prosecutor further argued:

“The Judge has instructed you to find the defendant

guilty of capital murder if you bel ieve from the

evidence, number one, that he’s involved in a conspiracy

to rob, number two, that at the time of the r obbery he

was doing something to help or make that robbery

successful, that there was a murder and that somebody had

the specific intent to kill somebody, either Jojo had it

or Willie had it, either one. It doesn’t matter . That

the murder was done in furtherance of the original plan

of the robbery, to he lp it in some way or to get away,

immediate flight therefrom. And you must believe that

this murder was an offense that the defendant should have

anticipated.

If you believe those five things from the evidence

it will be your duty to find that man guilty of capital

murder.” (Emphasis added).

Additionally, the prosecutor argued:

11 by Nichols as a result of carrying out the conspiracy. 1 1 The

defense argued, as it had at Nichols’ first trial, that Williams

fired the fatal shot from the deli door as he exited and came back

in, and that this was, in the words o f the charge, “the separate

act of Willie Ray Williams, acting independently,” for which

Nichols would not be responsible. The state primarily argued that

Nichols fired the fatal shot. B ut

, it also argued extensively, in

the alternative, that even if Williams had fired the fatal shot,

Nichols was guilty of cap ital murder under the law of parties. 1 2“The defense is sayin g that what you really have

here is a situation where there are cracks in the law and

we want you to let Jojo Nichols slip through these cracks

and get away. Well, the legislature thought about that.

They’re not completely dumb up there. Somebody told them

what to do. A nd they have the law of parties

. It fills

in the cracks. It’s like the mortar in a brick wall.

You guys are all responsible when you go in there with

loaded guns under certain conditi ons. Was there a

conspiracy to rob, rob them of anything, money, guns,

anything else. Was there a conspiracy to rob. The

defense admits that, yes, there was. When the robbery

occurred, was Jojo do ing anything to promote or assist

that robbery? The defense admits, yes, he was pointing

a gun, telling you to put money in the sack and fired a

gun. The defense admits it. He fired a gun before he

ran out that door.

Was there a murder? You bet. A nd it doesn’t matter

who killed him under our law, under this rule of parties

. Was it reasonable to expect that this could happen? Of

course.” (Emphasis added).

12 The jury returned its verdict finding Nichols guilty of capital

murder.

At the subsequent punis hment phase the state submitted

evidence that Nichols had been convicted of theft in 1979, and had

pleaded g uilty in May 1980 to an April 1980 robbery for which he

was sentenced in July 1980 to nine years' felony probation, which

he was serving when he committed the instant offense.

Additionally, it was shown that on August 13, 1980, Nichols

committed an armed robbery of a convenience sto re, shooting the

clerk in the shoulder when he did not respond speedily enough to

Nichols' demand for more money. Nichols continued to demand more

m oney as the clerk was bleeding from his wound. Further, on

October 11, 1980, two days before the present offense, Nichols

committed another robbery of a convenience store, aiming his pistol13 For example, in respect to the first special issue, dealing

with deliberateness, the prosecutor argued:

13 at the clerks. There was also evidence that when booked into jail

following his arrest for the instant offense, Nichols had stated he

would "shoot any deputy that got in his way." Finally, there was

evidence that in June 1981, while in jail awaiting trial, Nichols

conspired with others to engage in an escape involving the use of

a firearm and other weapons. The defense called fifteen witnesses.

Many testified they thought Nichols could be rehabilitated, that he

was nineteen at the time of the offense, and that at school he had

had average grades, had been an excellent athlete, and had

presented no disciplinary problems. His parents divorced when he

was seven, but both maintained a good relationship with him. He

married, and dropped out of school, at about age seventeen to

support his young child. His parents thought he had gotten into

trouble due to the pressure he was under to support his young child

and because he got in with a bad crowd.

The court submitted the three punishment special issues to the

jury (see note 6, supra ). No instruction was given respecting the

law of parties. The defense argued, among other things, that the

fatal shot was fired by Williams, and that any shooting was in

reaction to Shaffer’s having grabbed his gun. Emphasis was put on

Nichols’ youth, his family, his character witnesses, and his

potential for rehabilitation. The state argued that Nichols fired

the fatal shot, but did not argue any of the special issues solely

on that theory. 13 It stressed Nichols’ prior offenses and conduct“Was his conduct deliberate. H e doesn’t have to fire the

fatal shot

. But was h is conduct deliberate. You bet it

was deliberate. It was even more than that. He planned

that robbery. He picked that store. It was a

premeditated robbery. He thought about the fact that

he’s going to need a gun when he went in there. You know

that he meant to u se it because it was loaded and you

know he fired that gun into an innocent man.” (Emphasis

added).

14 Affirmance by the Court of Criminal Appeals was unanimous

except for one judge who noted, without elaboration, that he would

have sustained Lane’s point of error concerning the trial court’s

sua sponte excuse of a prospective juror; two judges concurred in

the result without opinion.

14 in jail. Neither side argued that the verdict of guilty

established or meant that Nichols fired the fatal shot, or that any

of the special issues were to be answered by reference to

Williams’, rather than Nichols’, state of mind or conduct or the

like. On February 26, 1982, the jury returned its verdict

answering all three special issues in the affirmative, and the

court sentenced Nichols to death.

One of Nichols’ trial attorneys, E. Neil Lane (Lane), was

appointed to represent Nichols on direct appeal. After receiving

leave from the court, attorney Brian Wice was allowed to substitute

as Nichols' appellate counsel. Wice filed a supplemental brief

that raised twenty points of error. After considering each of the

issues raised in the original brief filed by Lane and each of the

issues raised in the Wice supplemental brief, the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sent ence. Nichols’

conviction became final on January 9, 1989, when the United States

Supreme Court denied certiorari

. S ee Nichols v. State

, 754 S.W.2d

185 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), cert. denied , 109 S.Ct. 819 (1989). 1415

In May 1989, Nichols, now represented by new counsel, two

attorneys of a leading Houston law firm, filed an 86-page

application for habeas corpus in the Texas trial court. Amended

applications were filed on June 9, 1989, January 8, 1990, and June

6, 1990, the latter being some 123 pages long. The state filed an

answer and amended answer supported by affidavits. On October 19

and November 2, 1990, the Texas trial court conducted an

evidentiary hearing on Nichols’ claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel and his statistic al challenge to the Texas death penalty

statute as unconstitutional in its application. The trial court on

June 28, 1991, entered an order recommending denial of all relief

and adopting verbatim the state’s amended proposed findings of fact

and conclusions of law. On December 12, 1991, the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals denied all relief in an order stating in relevant

part: “The trial court, after holding an evidentiary hearing, has

entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended the

relief sought be denied. This Court has reviewed the record with

respect to the allegations now made by applicant and finds that the

findings and conclusions entered by the trial court are supported

by the record. The relief sought is denied.”

Nichols, represented by the same counsel who represented him

in his state habeas proceedings, in January 1992 filed the instant

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court below.

Nichols asserted numerous claims before th e district court,

including (1) that the punishment special issues precluded the jury

from considering or giving effect to mitigating character evidence15 On February 3, 1992, the district court had denied the

state’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the scheduled

evidentiary hearing embraced unexhausted claims.

16 and to evidence that Nichols did not kill Shaffer; (2) that the

prosecutor’s use of contr adictory theories at the trials of

Williams and Nichols violated the doctrines of judicial estoppel,

collateral estoppel, due process, and the duty to seek justice; (3)

that Williams should have been compelled by the court to testify

for the defense because he waived his right to remain silent when

he testified at the first Nichols trial; (4) that retrial of

Nichols const ituted double jeopardy; (5) that the prosecutor

knowing ly failed to correct perjured testimony given by Parker

about her cooperation agreement with the state and created the

false impression in his summation that she was unaware of a promise

of leniency that her attorney received in exchange for her

testimony; (6) that the Texas death penalty statute and its

consistent interpretation by the Court of Criminal Appeals operated

to deny Nichols his rights under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments; (7) that Nichols was denied effective assi stance of

both trial and appellate counsel; (8) that Nichols was denied a

meaningful direct appeal; and (9) that various instances of claimed

p rosecutorial misconduct occurred. The state answered and moved

for summary judgment.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing in March 1992. 15

On August 31, 1992, the district court granted habeas relief and16 We subsequently stayed the district court's order pending

this appeal.

17 We would agree with this latter conclusion of the district

court had it said that “either Williams or Nichols actually fired

the shot that killed Shaffer.” The record not only clearly shows,

without contradiction , that both Nichols and Williams fired a t

17 ordered Nichols released or retried within 120 days. 16 The district

court based its decision to grant relief on its conclusions that

(1) the major mitigating thrust of Nichols’ claimed nontriggerman

role in the offense was beyond the scope of any of the punishment

special issues; (2) by arguing that Nichols fired the shot that

killed Shaffer after obtaining a death senten ce against Williams

for killing Sh affer, the state violated principles of

constitutional collateral estoppel; and (3) the fore g oing two

conclusions, taken in combination with certain aspects of the state

habeas proceedings, resulted in denial of Nic hols’ due process

rights. N ichols, 802 F.Supp. at 71-79. The district court

determined, however, that the referenced aspects of the state

habe as proceeding did n ot preclude the state habeas court’s

findings from being accorded the presumption of correctness called

for by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), id

. at 70, except the district court

declined to accord that presumption to the finding tha t “‘[t]he

jury was presented with overwhelming evidence that both applicant

[Nichols] and Williams shot S haffer,’” “because the record, as a

whole, does not fairly support such factual determination” in that

“the only conclusion which the record supports is that both

Williams and Nichols shot at Shaffer but that either Williams or

Nichols actually shot Shaffer.” Id . at 75 (original emphasis). 17Shaffer SQ i ndeed, the instant habeas petition avers that "it was

undisputed that all of the shots were fired with intent to

kill" SQ

but also allows the reasonable inference that both hit him

(though onl y one bullet, that which went through Shaffer's body,

was fatal, while the other, the superficial, glancing wound on the

side of his head, was neither fatal nor disabling).

18 The district court denied all the claims concerning: (1)

improper prosecutorial voir dire and other statements and argument

(apart from the argument that Nichols, rather than Williams, fired

the fatal shot, which, as above noted, the court found improperly

inconsistent with the prosecution position in Williams’ trial); (2)

the prosecuto r’s failure to correct Parker’s testimony about the

agreement concerning her testimony and creati ng the false

impression in argument that she was unaware of this; (3) Nichols’

denial of counsel at two line-ups; (4 ) all claims of denial of

effective assistance of counsel, in preparation, at

guilt/innocence, at sentencing, and on appeal; (5) the state court

erroneously failing to compel Williams to testify at Nichols’

sec ond trial; (6) that Nichols’ second trial violated double

jeopardy, particularly as had the first trial concluded on or after

August 31, 1981 (instead of July 31, 1981) the amended version of

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071(e) would have been in effect

under which the inability of the jury to answer any of the three

punishment issues would have resulted in a sentence of life

imprisonment; (7) the unconstitutionality of the Texas capital

sentencin g statutory provisions, both facially and as applied in

this case (including the alleged inability of the jury to give

mitig ating effect to Nichols’ youth and character evidence and

potential, but unpresented, evi dence of drug and/or alcohol use,

the failure to define both reasonable doubt and certain terms in

the special issues, and the failure to adequately narrow the class

of those exposed to the death penalty); and (8) excusing of certain

potential jurors. Id . at 69-70, 75, 76-78.

19 The mentioned post-hearing briefing referred to the allegedly

exculpatory information contained in “documents obtained just prior

to the [March 1992] hearing.” Id . at 79.

18 The district court denied the remainder of Nichols’ claims, 18

except a claim, raised for the first time in briefing following the

M arch 1992 federal evidentiary hearing, 1 9 concerning the state’s

alleged suppression of exculpatory ev idence contrary to B rady v.

Maryland

, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which Brady claim the district court

found unexhausted and “denied without prejudice to refiling after20 The district court for the same reason denied Nichols' motion

“to expand the record in this cause or to reconvene the evidentiary

hearing in order to consider evidence relating to this [ Brady ]

issue.” I d

. The motion to expand the record referred, i nter alia

, to an April 9, 1992, affidavit of Johnson stating, among other

things, that just after Nichols shot at Shaffer she "saw the taller

guy (Williams) lean across over the counter, and shoot his gun down

at Mr. Shaffer. This is the shot that went through Mr. Shaffer's

chest and killed him," th at "I just stood there frozen until the

men left the store," and that she then hid in the restroom and

while there "heard someone come back into the store and then

immediately leave again after firing another shot."

19 exhausting state remedies.” Id . at 79. 20

Respondent now appeals th e district court’s grant of habeas

relief. Nichols cross-appeals the court’s denial of some (but not

all) of his other claims.

Discussion

I. Respondent's Appeal

A. Mitigating Effect of Nichols' Role in the Offense Beyond

Scope of Special Issues

Respondent argues that the district court erred in concluding

that the mitigating effect of Nichols' claimed nontriggerman status

was beyond the scope of the special issues. Respondent asserts

that the district court's conclusion is contrary to Fifth Circuit

precedent and that, even if it were not, the court ignored a state

procedural bar based on Nichols' failure to object to the charge on

this basis or to request an anti-parties instruction at the

sentencing phase of his state trial.

The Court of Criminal Appeals on direc t appeal rejected

Nichols' point of error complaining of the failure to give an

"anti-parties" charge at the punishment phase of the trial because

Nichols failed to reque st or object to the absence of such a21 In E nmund

, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits

imposition of the death penalty on one "who aids and abets a felony

in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does

not himself kill, attempt t o kill

, o r intend that a killing take

place or that letha l force will be employed

. " I d

. at 3376

(emphasis added). In T ison v. Arizona

, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 1688

(1987), the Court held that "major participation in the felony

committed, combined with reckless i ndifference to human life, is

sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requireme nt." S ee

also Schad v. Arizona , 111 S.Ct. 2491 (1991).

22 In Green , the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the death

sentence of a nontriggerman, but stated that the law of parties did

not apply at sentencing to authorize affirmative ans wers to the

special issues based on the state of mind or conduct of others, and

overruled Wilder and Armour v. State

, 583 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1979), "as far as it is inconsistent with this opinion."

Green at 287. G reen further states that "[u]pon request by a

capital murder defendant or the State, the jury is to be instructed

at the punishment phase that only the conduct of the defendant can

be considered at the punishment phase, and th at the instructions

pertaining to the law of parties given at the guilt stage cannot be

considered. Appellant did not request any such charge in this

case." Id . at 287 n.4.

Wilder and Armour arg u ably, though neither expressly nor

clearly, held that the law of parties could be applied in reviewing

the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain affirmative answers to

the punishment special issues (it did not involve or consider any

instructional issue, and there is no indication that there was any

instruction at the punishment phase concerning the law of parties).

20 charge. N ichols

, 754 S.W.2d at 198-199. The Court recognized that

the law of parties did not apply at the punishment stage, but held

that the punishment special issues adequately covered the

requirements of Enmund v. Florida

, 102 S.Ct. 3368 ( 1982), 2 1 and

Green v. State

, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), cert.

denied , 105 S.Ct. 1407 (1985). 22 The Court found that

". . . appellant was not egregiously harmed by the lack

of such a charge. Although the jury was charged on the

law of parties at the guilt stage, it cannot be presumed

that they considered the same during punishment. To the

contrary, the careful trial court, while not having the

benefit of the Green decision at the time of trial, voir

dired the jury on the fact that the law of parties, while

applicable at guilt, was not applicable to the punishment23 Alternatively, the court held that the jury was not precluded

by the special issues and the absence of an anti-parties

instru ction from considering and giving favorable effect to

Nichols' asserted nontriggerman status.

21 special issues. Moreover, the special issues themselves

incorporate the Enmund-Green requirements by directly

focusing upon solely the defendant's culpability.

. . .

While a prophylactic 'anti-parties' instruction should be

given at punishment, upon request, the absence of such an

instruction in the instant case d id not constitute

egregious error or harm." Nichols at 199 (footnote

omitted).

The state habeas court specifically rejected Nichols' claim

that the punishment special issues, combined with the failure to

give an "anti-par ties" instruction at the punishment phase,

unconstitutionally prevented the jury from adequately considering

and giving favorable effect to his claimed nontriggerman status, on

the basis that such claimwas procedurally barred by Nichols'

failure to object to the punishment charge on that basis or to

request an "anti-parties" or other special punishment instruction

in that respect. 23 The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that

the state habeas court's findings were proper and denied relief on

that basis.

We conclude that Nichols has not shown cause for his

procedural de fault in this respect, and further has not

demonstrated prejudice, so his claim in this regard is procedurally

barred, as respondent asserted below. This holding is plainly

mandated by our holding in Buxton v. Collins

, 925 F.2d 816, 820-822

(5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 111 S.Ct. 1095 (1991), as well as by the24 The district court did not address the procedural bar issue.

Nichols argues that Selvage v. Collins

, 816 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. Crim.

A pp. 1991), and Black v. State

, 816 S.W.2d 350, 364, 374 (Tex

. Crim. App. 1991), demonstrate that Texas does not apply the

procedural bar to certain Penry v. Lynaugh

, 109 S.Ct. 2924 (1989),

claims in cases tried before the Supreme Court's decision in Penry

. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals de cisions in S elvage and

Black were handed down May 29, 1991, and the habeas procedural bar

ruling by the state trial court in Nichols' case was rendered June

28, 1991, and that of the Cou rt of Criminal Appeals applying the

procedural bar was rendered December 12, 1991. Moreover, in B uxton

w e expressly declined to withhold decision awaiting the Court of

Criminal Appeals decisi on in S elvage

, noting the differences

between the "nontriggerman" issue there and the type of Penry issue

involved in Selvage

. See Buxton at 821-822.

That "cause" is not established as a matter of federal habeas

law is also clear from Selvage v. Collins , 975 F.2d 131 (5th Cir.

1992), cert. denied , 113 S.Ct. 2445 (1993).

25 In B ridge we stated: "If the jury members believed that

Bridge's accomplice killed the victim, then they co uld have

answered 'no' to the first question . . . . If the jury members

believed that Bridge did not shoot the victim, then they could have

concluded that Bridge would not be a future threat." Id . at 770.

We quoted the above language with approval in Harris and likewise

there pointed out that in both Bridge and Drew a law of parties

charge had been given at the guilt/innocence stage. H arris at 189.

22 principles of Wainwright v. Sykes

, 97 S.Ct. 2497 (1977), and Engle

v. Isaac , 102 S.Ct. 1558 (1982), and their progeny. 24

Moreove r, and apart from any procedural bar, Nichols' claim

fails on the merits. In H arris v. Collins

, 990 F.2d 185, 189 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied

, 113 S.Ct. 3069 (1993), a case where a capital

defendant's conviction may have rested on the law of parties, we

specifically held that if the jury believed the defendant did not

strike the fatal blow this was a matter they could consider as

favorable to a negative answer to both the first and second

punishment issues. See also Bridge v. Collins , 963 F.2d 767, 770

(5th Cir. 1992), and Drew v. Collins , 964 F.2d 411, 421 (5th Cir.

1992)

. 25 Further, in S tewart v. Collins

, 978 F.2d 199, 201 (5thThere is nothing to suggest that an "anti-parties" instruction was

given at sentencing in either Bridge or Drew

. An "anti-parties"

charge was not given at sentencing in Harris

.

26 We likewise held that this was so despite the failure to

define "deliberately" in the first special issue. I d

. at 1326

n.13. S ee also Nethery v. Collins

, 993 F.3d 1154, 1162 & n.28 (5th

Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S.Ct. 1416 (1994).

23 Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 113 S.Ct. 1951 (1993), we held that the

jury at the punishment stage could ad equately consider the

defendant's asserted "nontriggerman" role in the capital murder and

his lack of intent to kill as supportive of negativ e answers to

each of the first and second punishment special issues. More

recently, in Jacobs v. Scott , 31 F.3d 1319, 1326 & n.13 (5th Cir.

1994), cert. denied , 115 S.Ct. 771 (1995), we again held that the

first and second punishment special issues adequately allowed the

jury to give mitigating effect to claimed "nontriggerman" status,

notwithstanding the a bsence of an "anti-parties" instruction at

sentenci ng. 2 6 S ee also, e.g., Skillern v. Estelle

, 720 F.2d 839,

843 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied

, 105 S.Ct. 224 (1984); Johnson v.

McCotter

, 804 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied

, 107 S.Ct.

1262 (1987); Andrews v. Collins

, 21 F.3d 612, 630-31 (5th Cir.

1994).

We further note that no law of parties instruction was given

at the punishment phase, and that neither the prosecution nor the

defense ever argued or asserted that the law of parties applied at

the punishment phase or that the finding of guilty meant that the

jury in answering any of the punishment issues had to assume that

Nichols fired the fatal shot or that Williams' conduct and state of24

mind, rather than Nichols', was the relevant consideration in

answering any of the punishment issues. The defense stressed in

argument at the punishment phase that Williams, not Nichols, fired

the fatal shot. It is apparent, considering the entire record,

from voir dire through sentencing, that all concerned operated on

the assumption that the law of parties did not apply at sentencing.

Moreover, as the court below found, some jurors in Nichols' first

trial did take into account in voting for a negative answer to the

second special issue their belief that Ni chols was not the

triggerman, notwithstanding that the law of parties was instructed

on at the guilt/innocence stage and no "anti-parties" instruction

was given at the punishment phase. We are convinced that there is

no "reasonable likelihood," Estelle v. McGuire

, 112 S.Ct. 475, 482

(1991); Johnson v. Texas

, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 2669 (1993), that the

punishment phase jury in Nichols' February 1982 t rial applied or

understood the punishment phase instructions or special issues as

other t han allowing them to consider Nichols' claimed

"nontriggerman" status as a factor that could favor a negative

answer to the first and second sentencing issues. The mitigating

aspect of the evidence of Nichols' claimed "nontriggerman" status

was "within 'the effective reach of the sentencer.'" J ohnson at

2669 (quoting Graham v. Collins , 113 S.Ct. 892, 901 (1993)).

We hold that Nichols is entitled to no relief on his claim

that the instructions and special issues at the punis hment phase

precluded the jury from adequately considering or giving mitigating

effect to his claimed nontriggerman status, and that the district25

court erred in holding to the contrary.

B. Estoppel SQ

Due Process

Respondent next argue s that the district court improperly

granted relief on the basis of its conclusion that the prosecutor

violated principles of estoppel and due process by arguing for and

obtaining a c onviction and death sentence against two men for

firing a single bullet. Respondent contends that the district

court in this respect granted Nichols the benefit of a new rule not

compelled by existing precedent when Nichols' conviction became

final, contrary to Teague v. Lane

, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (1989), and that

in any event the district court erred because collateral estoppel

is not applicable in criminal cases lacking common defendants, and

even if it were, the question of who fired the fatal bullet is not

an issue to which estoppel would apply.

The distr ict court concluded that "the due process boundary

upon prosecutorial conduct a nd the appearance of basic fairness

derived from that boundary co mmand[s] a determination that, in a

criminal prosecution, the State is constitutionally estopped from

obtaining a fact finding in one trial and seeking and obtaining an

inconsistent fact finding in another trial." N ichols

, 802 F.Supp.

at 74 (emphasis added). The court also noted that while "Williams

and Nichols can both be guilty of capital murder because the state

of Texas has determined, by law, that both are equally culpable

without regard to who fired the bullet which killed Shaffer.

. . .

William and Nichols cannot both be guilty of firing the same bullet27 As previously observed, we would agree with this assessment

if "a ctually shot Shaffer" read "actually fired the shot that

killed Shaffer" (see note 17, supra ).

The Court of Criminal Appeals was essentially correct in its

statement SQ

never disputed by the district cou r t SQ that "[i]t is

factually unknowable and evidentiarily improva ble who fired the

fatal shot." Nichols v. State at 202, n.18.

26 because physics will not permit it." Id . (emphasis in original).

The district court did not conclude that Williams had in fact fired

the fatal bullet, or that any of the prosecutor's evidence and

argument in Nichols' trial was factually false. With respect to

the state's arguments in Nichols' second trial that Nichols fired

the fatal shot and its arguments in Williams' case that Williams

did, the court stated "this Court acknowledges the State's argument

that the a bove are merely different interpretations of the same

evidence," id

. at 74, and the court never suggested that this

characterization was f actually inaccurate. Nor did the district

court with respect to what the evidence showed at any of the three

trials ever state anything in this respect more definite or precise

than "the only conclusion which the record supports is that both

Williams and Nichols shot at Shaffer but that either Williams or

Nichols actually s hot Shaffer." I d

. at 73 (original emphasis). 27

What the district court did determine was that, regardless of what

the actual facts were or what the evidence showed, the Williams

trial legally or judicially established that Williams, not Nichols,

fired the fatal shot. Thus, the district court stated:

". . . the State argued, the jury found, and the court

accepted the determination in the Williams trial that

Williams was the triggerman, not just a party to the

offense. That fact was established as the truth . This

Court has also concluded that the prosecutor in charge of27

Nichols II offered evidence and argued to the jury and

court that Nichols was the triggerman. By prior judicial

determination, the evidence submitted was necessarily

false. Accordingly, this Court finds that the prosecutor

in charge of Nichols II knowingly used false evidence to

obtain the conviction and sentence in Nichols II." Id

. at 75.

The district court, citing Rogers v. Lynaugh

, 8 48 F.2d 606

(5th Cir. 1988), noted that due process violations could either be

specific, where particular protec tions of the Bill of Rights

incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment were trans gressed, or

"generic." Nichols , 802 F.Supp. at 72. As no particular Bill of

Rights provision was cited by the district court, it appears to

have relied on the concept of a "generic" due process violation.

But such a concept generally focuses on the reliability or fairness

of the fact finding process in the particular trial the result of

which is being challenged. C f. Rogers at 610 (noting that

prosecutor's injecting into the challenged trial "issues broader

than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the controlling

law" could constitute a generic due p rocess violation). What

ha ppened in Williams' trial S Q which the Nichols defense team was

clearly aware of SQ did not affect the reliability or fairness of the

fact finding process in either of Nichols' trials.

What the district court in substance did here was to hold that

the state was collaterally estopped from taking in Nichols' case a

different position as to who fired the fatal bullet than that which

it took in Williams' prosecution. As the Supreme Court observed in

Schiro v. Farley , 114 S.Ct. 783, 790 (1994):

"In Ashe v. Swenson

, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25

L.Ed. 2d 469 (1970), we held that the Double Jeopardy28 As we also stated in S howery

, " Ashe thus makes it clear that

collateral estoppel applies insofar as it is necessary to safeguard

against the risk of double jeopardy." Id

. Showery

further points out that prior to Benton the Court in

Hoag v. New Jersey

, 78 S.Ct. 831 (1958), in a factual setting

almost identical to that of Ashe

, had rejected a due process challenge to the defendant's second trial. Showery at 203.

28 Clause incorporates the doctrine of collateral estoppel

in criminal proceedings.

. . . Collateral estoppel, or,

in modern usage, issue preclusion, 'means simply that

when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined

by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be

litigated between the same parties in any future

lawsuit.' A she

, 397 U.S., at 443, 90 S.Ct., at 1194."

(Emphasis added).

It is apparent from this that Ashe

, which was a state prosecution,

rests not on "generic" due process, but rather on the double

jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which Benton v. Maryland

,

89 S.Ct. 2056 (1960), had previously held was incorporated into the

Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. We have rejected

"attempts to erect a due process basis, independent of the double

jeopardy clause, for the application of collateral estoppel."

Showery v. Samaniego , 814 F.2d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 1987). 28

Because Nichols was not in jeopardy in Williams' trial , the

results of that trial do not bind the state in its prosecution of

Nichols. Moreover, the rule of "collateral estoppel" described in

Ashe as having been applied in federal criminal cases for "more

than 50 years" SQ

and which it ultimately held mandated by the double

jeopardy clause SQ

required that the two actions be between "the same

parties." Ashe , 90 S.Ct. at 1194. Thus, because Nichols was not

a party in Williams' trial, the result in that trial could not

collaterally estop the state in its p rosecution of Nichols even29

under the federal common law rule of collateral estoppel in

criminal cases. We have declined to apply collateral estoppel

against the United States in a criminal prosecution on the basis of

an earlier determination in the United States' criminal prosecution

of a different defendant. U nited States v. Mollier

, 853 F.2d 1169,

1176 (5th Cir. 1988) (where defendants are di fferent "collateral

estoppel has no application in criminal cases"); United States v.

Montes

, 976 F.2d 235, 239 (5th Cir. 1992) (same), cert. denied

, 113

S.Ct. 1831 (1993).

We recognize, as we did in Mollier and Montes , that in civil

cases collateral estoppel is now applied even where the parties are

not the same, so that if a suitor has fully and fairly litigated an

issue and it is determined against him in an action against one

party, then third parties unrelated to the original action can

generally bar that suitor from relitigating that same issue in a

subsequent action again them. See Mollier at 1175 n.7; Montes at

239. However, as we pointed out in M ollier

, citing Stand efer v.

United States

, 100 S.Ct. 1999 (1980), the "efficiency concerns that

drive the collateral estoppel policy on the civil side are not

nearly so important in criminal cases." M ollier at 1176. We also

observe that even in the civil context the modern broad rule of

collateral estoppel is frequently not applied against the

government acting in its sovereign capacity. S ee United States v.

Mendoza

, 104 S.Ct. 568 (1984) (holding in an immigrat ion context

that the government coul d not be collaterally estopped from

litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of29 The court charged the Williams jury:

"The Defendant, WILLIE RAY WILLIAMS, stands charged

by indictment with the offense of capital murder, alleged

to have been committed in Harris County, Texas on or

about the 13th day of October, 1980.

To this charge the defendant has pleaded 'guilty',

and he h as persisted in entering such plea,

notwithstanding the Court, as req uired by law, has

admonished him of the consequences of t he same; and it

30 the Nationality Act, ad judicated against it in a prior action

brought by a different party). Moreover, we observe that "[u]ntil

relatively recently, however, the scope of collateral estoppel was

limited by the doctrine of mutuality of parties." P arklane Hosiery

Co., Inc. v. Shore

, 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 (1979). S ee also Restatement

of Judgments § 93 (1942) ("[A] person who is not a party . . . is

not bound by or entitled to claim the benefits of an

adjudication"). Consequently, allowing persons to claim collateral

estoppel benefits of an adjudication to which they were strangers

can hardly be considered as manda ted by historic concepts of

fundamental fairness or due process.

Moreover, the district court clearly erred in its conclusion

that in the Williams trial the jury found that Williams fired the

fatal shot. The jury made no such finding. Williams pleaded

guilty and the jury was instructed to return a verdict of guilty.

It did so, merely signing and returning the verdict form finding

Williams "guilty of the offense of capital murder, as charged in

the indictment." The jury charge said nothing about the elements

of the offense or about whether Williams fired the fatal bullet (or

personally killed Shaffer) or whether the jury had to so find. 2 9plainly appearing to the Court that t he defendant is

sane, and that he is not influenced to make this plea by

any consideration of fear, nor by any persuasive or

delusive hope of pardon prompti ng him to confess his

guilt, said plea is by the Court received, and the jury

are instructed to find the defendant guilty as charged in

the indictment ." (Emphasis added).

After the charge was read, the court instructed the jury:

"You unanimously sign this verdict as I have instructed you and

come back out, and we will receive the verdict."

30 S ee also, e.g., Darden v. State

, 430 S.W.2d 494, 49 5 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1968) ("a plea of guilty to a felony charge before a jury admits the existence of all facts necessary to establish

guilt"); Miller v. State

, 412 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex. Crim. App.

1967) (same); Anderson v. State

, 42 S.W.2d 1012 (Tex. Crim. App.

31 Nor is it relevant that the indictment (see note 5, supra ) alleged

that Williams killed Shaffer by shooting him, for under Texas law

the indictment was clearly sufficient to support a conviction based

on the law of parties with the fatal shot being fired by Nichols

(see cases cited in the last paragraph of note 9, supra ).

Moreover, the evidence at the guilt/innocence stage of Williams'

trial showed that both Williams and Nichols were acting together to

commit armed robbery of Shaffer, that both fired at Shaffer, and

that one of these shots was fatal, but it was n ot clearly

established which. While the evidence would support the conclusion

that Williams fired the fatal shot, a ju ry could have had a

reasonable doubt of this and still found Williams guilty as charged

under the law of parties. In any event, under Texas law when a

defendant pleads guilty before the jury, as Williams did, the plea

itself establishes his guilt and the evidence is unnecessary and

immaterial unless it affirmatively demonstrates his innocence.

Williams

, 674 S.W. 2d at 318 , 320. 3 0 And, the punishment phase1931) ("the entry of the plea, after due admonition, is conclusive

of guilt, unle ss the evidence introduced upon the trial makes

manifest the innocence of the accused").

31 We note that Williams was twenty-four years old; during the

three months prior to his arrest, he had committed five other

robberies, two of which were after the instant offense.

At sentencing, Williams' counsel argued that the evidence did

not clearly show whether the fatal shot was that fired by Williams

or that fired by Nichols:

"You had JoJo [Nichols], a man who suggested the place we

are going to rob. The man who went up to the cash

register first. The man who fired the first shot. And

possibly, the fatal shot. We don't know. The District

Attorney is going to come up with a lot of conjecture

about where the casings and so forth were found. That's

merely conjecture. We don't know which shot did it.

They were both a party to it. You heard JoJo sit there

and plead the Fifth Amendment."

However, defense counsel never argued that any of the issues could

not be answer ed affirmatively unless the jury concluded that

Williams fired the fatal shot. The main thrust of defense

counsel's argument was that Williams shot without reflection in a

frightened reaction to Shaffer's pointing a gun at him, so all

three issues should be answered in the negative. The prosection

argued that Williams' shot was the fatal shot, but never conceded

that such a conclusion was necessary to answer any of the issues

affirmatively.

32 verdict contained no finding that Williams fired the fata l shot.

Further, neither the form of the punishment issues, nor the court's

charge, nor the evidence, required such a finding in order to

return an affirmative answer to t he three punishment special

issues. 31 Although the Court of Criminal Appeals in reciting the

evidence on Williams' direct appeal stated that he fired the fatal

shot, Williams at 317, nothing in its opinion suggests that this

was a necessary predicate for its affirmance of the sentence (or

the conviction). In finding the evidence sufficient to support the

affirmative answers to the punishment special issues, the Court of32 Nor is there any basis on which to conclude that the jury in

the second Nichols trial, either in its verdict of guilty or in its

answer to the punishment special issues, found that Nichols, rather

than Williams, fired the fatal shot. See text accompanying note

11, supra , and notes 12 and 13, supra , and accompanying text.

The verdicts and the judgments of conviction and sentences in

Williams' and Nichols' cases are not inconsistent.

33 Criminal Appeals in Williams relied on Smith v. State , 540 S.W.2d

693 (1976), a case in which it sustained a death sentence for a

nontriggerman (there, the defendant's "gun misfired. The codefendant shot and killed the attenda nt"). W illiams at 321. In

Nichols' case, the Court of Criminal Appeals held the evidence

sufficient to support the affirmative answers to the three special

issues although it concluded it was "factually unknown and

evidentiarily improvable who fired the fatal shot." Nichols , 754

S.W.2d at 202 n.18. 32

In Dowling v. United States

, 110 S.Ct. 668, 672 (1990), the

Court noted that the rule of Ashe was that "'when an issue of

ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final

judgme nt, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same

parties in any future lawsuit.'" I d

. (quoting Ashe at 1194).

Dowling refused to give the defendant's prior acquittal in another

case prec lusive effect because "the prior acquittal did not

determine an ultimate issue in the present case." D owling at 672.

In Schiro , the Court rejected a claim of double jeopardy based on

the jury verdict in the defendant 's first trial, because the

defendant "has not met his burden of establishing

. . . that an

'issue of ultimate fact has once been determined' in his favor."

Id

., 114 S.Ct. at 790. Here Nichols has failed to demonstrate that34

Williams' tri al determined that Williams, rather than Nichols,

fired the fatal shot. Nichols has likewise failed to demonstrate

t hat whether Williams, rather than Nichols, fired the fatal shot

was an "ultimate issue" in either his own trial or in Williams'

trial. Hence Nichols fails to meet the requirements of collateral

estoppel on these additional bases, as well as because he was not

a party to the Williams case.

Nichols also contends in this conne ction that the state was

barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from taking a position

in his trial inconsistent with that it had taken in Williams', a

view which the district court appears to likewise have adopted.

Common law judicial estoppel has been referred to as an

"obscure doctrine," United States v. McCaskey

, 9 F.3d 368, 378 (5th

Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S.Ct. 1565 (1994); United States v.

Kattar

, 840 F.2d 118, 129-130 n.7 (1st Cir. 1988), lacking "defined

principles" and subject to criticism as "basically an 'ad hoc'

decision in each case." Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Plasser American

Corp.

, 747 F.2d 1567, 1579 (F ed. Cir. 1984). S ee also Morris v.

State of California

, 966 F.2d 448, 453 (9th Cir. 1991) ("the

doctrine of judicial estoppel 'is an equitable doctrine invoked by

the court at its discretion'"), cert. denied

, 113 S.Ct. 96 (1992).

"The doctrine has not been uniformly adopted by federal courts."

Bates v. Long Island Ry. Co.

, 997 F.2d 1028, 1037 (2d Cir.), cert.

denied

, 114 S.Ct. 550 (1993). "The Tenth Circuit, however, has

rejected the doctrine of judicial estoppel." U nited States v.

49.01 Acres o f Land , 802 F.2d 387, 390 (10th Cir. 1986). In35

Konstantindis v. Chen

, 626 F.2d 933, 938 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the

court held that "the judicial estoppel doctrine has no validity in

t his jurisdiction," referring to local District of Columbia law,

and stated that "judicial estoppel has not been followed by

anything approaching a majority of jurisdictions, nor is there a

discernible modern trend in that direction." In U MWA 1974 Pension

v. Pittston Co

., 984 F.2d 469 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied

, 113 S.Ct.

3069 (1993), the Court observed "we have not previous ly embraced

the doctrine of judicial estoppel in this circuit and we decline to

do so in this case." I d

. at 477 (footnote omitted). In B ates the

Second Circuit stated that judicial estoppel's "elements have never

been clearly defined in this Circuit." I d

. at 1037 (footnote

omitted). S ee also Morris at 452 ("Although this circuit has

adopted the doctrin e of judicial estoppel, we have not yet

determined the circumstances under which it will be applied").

Two thing s, however, may be said about the rather amorphous

doctrine of judicial estoppel. First, there is no indication in

the authorities that it is constitutionally mandated. Second, it

has apparently never been applied against the governme nt in a

criminal case. S ee McCaskey at 378 ("an obscure doctrine that has

apparently never been applied in a criminal case"); Kattar at 129-

30 n.7 ("as far as we can tell, this obscure doctrine has never

been applied against the government in a criminal proceeding").

See also, e.g., State v. Abbott

, 64 N.J. Super. 191, 165 A.2d 537,

543 (App. Div. 1960) ("the application of estoppel against the

State is particularly inappropriate in areas such as criminal33 There is considerable authority that judicial estoppel does

not apply in favor of one who was not a p arty to the prior

proceeding in which the inconsistent position was taken. S ee, e.g., Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc. v. Mitchell , 403

F.2d 541, 550 (5th Cir. 1968) (Rubin, J.) ("judicial estoppel may

be invoked only by a party to the prior litigation or someone privy

to a party"); Jackson Jordan, Inc. at 1579 ("No case is cited where

the doctrine was applied in favor of a total stranger to the first

phase of the dispute"); Reno v. Beckett

, 555 F.2d 747, 770 (10th

Cir. 1977) ("Kansas law is clear that a position taken by a party

in one suit cannot be claimed as working an estoppel in another

suit in favor of a party who was a stranger to the first suit").

See also Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co

., 99

F.2d 9, 13 (5th Cir. 1938), cert. denied

, 59 S.Ct. 362 (1939) ("The

general rule is that one may not to the prejudice of the other deny

any position taken in a prior judicial proceeding between the same parties or their privies involving the same subject matter, if

successfully maintained"); S carano v. Central Ry. Co. of New

Jersey

, 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir. 1953) ("A plaint iff who has

obtained relief from an adversary by asserting and offering proof

to support one position may not be heard later in the same court to

contradict himself in an effort to establish against t he same

adversary a second claim inconsistent with his earlie r

contention"); Chemical Bank v. Aetna Insurance Company

, 99 Misc.2d

803, 417 N.Y.S.2d 382, 384-85 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979) ("Defendant in

this action, being a legal 'stranger' to the prior action, it may

not avail itself of the defense of judicial estoppel based upon plaintiff's alleged inconsistent legal position in that action");

28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Wa iver , § 70 at 698. C f. Guidry v.

Sheet Metal Workers , 10 F.3d 700, 716 (10th Cir. 1993) ("judicial

estoppel . . . recognized by some circuits, prevents a party from

relying on inconsistent ar guments in successive stages of

litigation when the party was victoriou s on the point in a prior

phase of the case"); In re Double D Drilling Company

, 467 F.2d 468,

469 (5th Cir. 1972) (Brown, C.J.) ("Our research discloses no case

in this Circuit in which pleadings in identifiably separate actions

were made the basis of such an estoppel. The consolidation order

36 prosecution"), rev'd on other grounds, aff'd in this resp ect , 36

N.J. 63, 174 A.2d 881, 889 (N.J. 1961); 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estoppel and

Waiver

, § 126 at 788 (same). C f. Office of Personnel Management v.

Richmond

, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 2470 ("we have reversed every finding of

estoppel [against the gov ernment] that we have reviewed"), 2471

("[w]e leave for another day whether an estoppel claim could ever

succeed against the Government") (1990). 33of the District Court, however, created what is in essence a single

lawsuit

. . . and we hold that when identity of partie s and a

single transaction encompass both actions a party m aking such an

allegation is bound by it"). There is also, however, authority

that the party invoking the estoppel need not have been a party to

the prior proceeding. S ee Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co

., 667 F.2d 1162,

1166-68 (4th Cir. 1982); 1B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.405[8] at

III-57 ("it is not always essential that the party asserting the

estoppel ha ve been a party to the litigation in which the first

position was asserted").

Moreover, most courts refuse to invoke judicial estoppel where

it is not shown that the prior inconsistent position was

successfully maintained. S ee U.S. for Use of American Bank v.

C.I.T. Const ., 944 F.2d 253, 258-59 (5th Cir. 1991) (described as

"majority" position); M errill Lynch v. Georgiadis

, 903 F.2d 109,

114 (2d Cir. 1990); Sinclair Refining Co. at 13; Guidry at 716; 28

Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver , § 70 at 698.

37 In the present ci rcumstances, to hold that the state was

constitutionally barred by any form of estoppel SQ whether under the

rubric of collateral estoppel or some variety of judicial or other

estoppel SQ from taking the position in Nichols' case that the shot

he fired was the fatal sh ot because it had previously taken the

position in Williams' case, in which Williams received the death

sentence, that the fatal shot was the one fired by Williams, would

be to appl y "a new rule" of constitutional law "not d ictated by

precedent existin g at the time" Nichols' "conviction became

final" SQ

January 9, 1989 SQ

contrary to Teague v. Lane

, 109 S.Ct. 1061,

1070 (1989) (original emphasis). The two T eague exception s are

inapplicable. The rule contended for by Nichols plainly is not one

which "places 'certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct

beyond the power of the crimi nal law-making authority to

proscribe.'" T eague at 1075. Certainly, Nichols was properly

eligible for the death penalty whether or not the shot he fired at

Shaffer SQ

as opposed to that fired by his co-actor Williams SQ was the34 Nichols cites no supporting Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit

authority. He relies primarily on the concurring opinion of Judge

T. Clark in Drake v. Kemp

, 762 F.2d 1449, 1470-1479 (11th Cir.

1 985) (en banc). No other judge of the en banc Eleventh Circuit

joined that opinion. We do not view it as compelling authority.

Nichols also relies on T roedel v. Wainwright

, 667 F.Supp. 1456,

1458-60 (S.D. Fla. 1986), aff'd 828 F.2d 670 (11th Cir. 1987). In

Troedel

, the district court granted habeas corpus on several

grounds, includ ing that the prosecutor had put in evidence

testimony by an expert "that, based upon the test analyses coupled

with his education, tra ining and experience, in his opinion,

Troedel had fired the murder weapon," id

. at 1458, but "the opinion

Troedel had fired the weapon was known by the prosecution not to be

based on the results of the neutron activation analysis tests, or

on any scientific certainty or even probability. Thus, the subject

testimony was not only misleading, but also was used by the State

knowing it to be misleading." I d

. at 1460. While the T roedel

district court looked to the expert's testimony at a prior trial,

it also relied on the expert's testimony at the federal habeas, in

38 cause of Shaffer's death. Nor is the other T eague exception

available here, as it applies only to rules "those new procedures

without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously

diminished." Id . at 1077 (emphasis added). What the prosecution

argued in the Williams case, and the result there, has nothing to

do with the likely accuracy of any determinations made in the

subsequent Nichols case.

As noted, a rule is "new" for Tea gue purposes unless

" dictated " by prior prece dent. I d

. at 1070 (original emphasis);

Butler v. McKellar

, 110 S.Ct. 1212, 1216 (1990). The prior

precedent must be such that it would have "compelled" the result;

Saffle v. Parks

, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 1260 (1990), and it is not enough

that the contended for rule merely "is within the 'logical compass'

of an earli er decision, or indeed that it is 'controlled' by a

prior decision." B u tler at 1217. The authority relied on by

Nichols does not come even close to meeting this standard. 34 Norconcluding that his tes timony at Troedel's trial was f actually

misleading (and known by the prosecutor to be so). No form of

est oppel or "constructive" falsity was involved. T roedel is

plainly distinguishable and is in any event not controlling

authority. Nichols also relies on P ettaway v. Plummer

, 943 F.2d

1041 (9th Cir. 1991), cer t. denied , 113 S.Ct. 296 (1992). But

Pettaway was decided after Nichols' conviction became final. It is

not on point in any event. It held that an express jury special

verdict SQ

mandated by state statute SQ that the defend a nt did not

personally fire the fatal shot prevented the state, on retrial of

the same defendant, from taking the position that the defendant did

personally fire the fatal shot. P ettaway relied on Ashe and Grady

v. Corbin

, 110 S.Ct. 2084 (1990 SQ since overruled by United States

v. Dixon

, 113 S.Ct. 2849 (1993) SQ and the panel there noted "[w]e

must, however, emphasize the limits of our holding." Pettaway at

1048.

Nichols' invocation of Miller v. Pate , 386 U.S. 1 (1967), is

wholly wide of the mark. M iller condemned a prosecutor's use of

evidence and argument that stai ns on the defendant's undershorts

were blood when they were i n fact paint, as the prosecutor th e n

well knew. That was a case of f actual, actual fals ity, not

"constructive" fals ity or falsity by estoppel as contended for

here. To rely on M iller as an escape from T eague requires

compelling pre-1989 authority both that falsity by estopp el is

constitutionally the same as actual, factual falsity and also that

constitutionally mandated estoppel applies here. There simply is

no such authority in either respect.

39 can this result be avoided by inv oking longstanding judicial

pronouncements that due proce ss concerns itself with fundamental

fairness and similar concepts. Such "a level of generality . . .

is far too great to provide any meaningful guidance for purpose of

our Teague inquiry." G ilmore v. Taylor

, 113 S.Ct. 2112, 2119

(1993). S ee also Sawyer v. Smith , 110 S.Ct. 2822, 2828 (1990)

( Teague "test would be meaningless if applied at this level of

generality").

In Jacobs v. Scott

, 31 F.2d 1319, 1326 (5th Cir. 1994), cert.

denied

, 115 S.Ct. 711 (1995), we held that a similar contention to

that advanced by Nichols here was barred by Teague

.

We accordingly hold that the district court erred in granting35 At the time of the district court's opinion, the panel

opinion in Derden had been vacated for nearly a year and the case

ordered reheard en banc. D erden v. McNeel

, 947 F.2d 147 (5th Cir.

1991). The en banc court subsequently reversed the panel decision

and adopted a s ignificantly narrower articulation of the habeas

cumulative error doctrine. D erden v. McNeel

, 978 F.2d 1453 (5th

Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 113 S.Ct. 2928 (1993).

36 The district court made the following findings regarding

Judge William Harmon, the state court judge to whom Nichols' habeas

petition was assigned:

"1. The state judge to which Nichols' state habeas

corpus petition was assigned, Judge William Harmon, was

a state prosecutor before becoming a district judge.

2. Judge Harmon was, while a state prosecutor, in

charge of prosecuting at least on e offense a gainst

Nichols.

3. The offense which Judge Harmon prosecuted

against Nichols was one of the ex traneous offenses

offered in connection with his conviction in the instant

case. 4. Judge Harmon did not sua sponte recuse himself

40 Nichols relief on the b asis that the state was in some manner

estopped or barred by its arguments and the result in the Williams

trial from taking the position in the subsequent Nichols trial that

the shot fired by Nichols was the fatal shot. Relief on any such

basis was barred by Teague

.

C. Cumulative Due Process

The district court, relying on the panel opinion in Derden v.

McNeel

, 938 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 19 91), 3 5 held that the combination

of the two above-noted grounds on which it granted relief SQ that the

punishment issues did not allow mitigating consideration of

Nichols' alleged non-triggerman status and that the state was

estopped to argue that the shot fired by Nichols was the fa tal

shot SQ plus certain aspects of the state trial court's h abeas

proceedings, 36 amounted to "cumulative error" which "resulted in afrom Nichols['] state habeas corpus case.

5. Judge Harmon made certain remarks on the record

after hearing evidence and argument during Nichols' state

habeas corpus heari ng. In response to a witness'

suggestion that Nichols' counsel could obtain statistical

data regarding habeas corpus cases by issuing a bench

warrant to bring each Harris County inmate in for a

hearing, Judge Harmon responded 'Could we arrange for a

van to blow up the bus on the way down here?'

6. On June 28, 1991, Judge Harmon signed thirtyfive pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law

(hereinafter 'Court findings') which resolved the merits

of Nichols' state habeas corpus petition.

7. Those 'Court findings,' actually entitled

'Respondent's Amended Proposed Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law and Order,' are a verbatim adoption of

the State's proposed findings and reflect no independent

input from the state district judge." N ichols

, 802

F.Supp. at 78-79.

Judge Harmon did not preside over any part of either of

Nichols' trials for Shaffer's murder, nor over Williams' trial.

The district court concluded that notwithstand ing his above

findings, the state cou rt's habeas findings were (with one

exception unrelated to those district court findings) entitled to

the presumption of correctness. N ichols

, 802 F.Supp. at 70. We

agree with this conclusion for the reasons stated in the text infra

in our discussion of Nichols' cross-appeal claim that the district

court erred in this respect.

37 The en banc court further stated in D erden that "[t]he

conduct of a trial judge can violate due process only if the judge

so favors the prosecution that he appears to predispose the jury

toward a finding of guilt or to take over the prosecutorial role."

Id

. at 1459 (citing United States v. Middlebrooks

, 618 F.2d 273,

41 denial of due process." N ichols

, 802 F.Supp. at 78-79. Our en

banc opinion in Derden states:

"federal habeas corpus relief may only be granted for

cumulative errors in the conduct of a state trial where

(1) the individual errors involved matters of

constitutional dimension rather than mere violations of

state law; (2) the errors were not procedurally defaulted

for habeas purposes; and (3) the errors 'so infected the

entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due

process.'" D erden v. McNeel

, 978 F.2 d 1453, 1454 (5th

Cir. 1992) (en banc) (quoting Cupp v. Naughten

, 94 S.Ct.

396, 400-01 (1973)), c ert. denied

, 113 S.Ct. 2928

(1993). 37277 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 101 S.Ct. 401 (1980), and United

States v. Sheldon , 544 F.2d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 1976)).

42 Since, as we have held, the jury was not un constitutionally

prevented from taking into account Nichols' claimed non-triggerman

s tatus in answering the punishment special issues, and the state

was not constitutionally barred or estopped from arguing that the

shot fired by Nichols was the fatal shot, therefore neither of

these matters can form the basis for a proper claim of

constitutional cu mulative error. That leaves only the matter of

the state habeas proceedings. However, errors in a state habeas

proceeding cannot serve as a basis for setting aside a valid

original conviction. An attack on a state habeas proceeding does

not entitle the petitioner to habeas relief in respect to his

conviction, as it "is an attack on a proceeding collateral to the

detention and not the detention itself." Millard v. Lynaugh , 810

F.2d 1403, 1410 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 108 S.Ct. 122 (1987);

Duf f-Smith v. Collins , 973 F.2d 1175, 1182 (5th Cir. 1992)

("infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds

for federal habeas relief"), cert. denied , 113 S.Ct. 1958 (1993);

Vail v. Procunier , 747 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1984) (same). See also

Frazen v. Brinkman

, 877 F.2d 26 (9th Cir. 1989); Hopkinson v.

Shillinger

, 866 F.2d 1185, 1218-1220 (10th Cir. 1989); B ryant v.

State of Md. , 848 F.2d 492 (4th Cir. 1988); K irby v. Dutton

, 794

F.2d 245, 247 (6th Cir. 1986); Williams v. Missouri

, 640 F.2d 140,

143 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 101 S.Ct. 2328 (1981).

Accordingly, the district court erred in its holding that43

Nichols was entitled to relief on the court's cumulative error

theory.

Having rejected each of the bases on which the district court

granted habeas relief, we sustain the state's appeal and reverse

the judgment of the district court insofar as it granted Nichols

habeas relief. We turn now to consider Nichols' cross-appeal.

II. Nichols' Cross-Appeal

A. Presumption of Correctness of State Court Findings

Nichols complains that the district court erred in affording

the section 2254(d) presumption of correctness to the state habeas

court fac t findings, contending that the following three

circumstances precluded application of the presumption, namely:

(1) the failure of the state habeas trial judge SQ Judge Harmon (who

did not preside at either of Nichols' trials) SQ to sua sponte recuse

himself on account o f having been the prosecuting attorney in

Nichols' May 1980 guilty plea conviction for robbery, which

conviction had been put in evidence by the state at the punishment

stage of Nichols' trial; (2) an inappropriate remark made by Judge

Harmon at the state habeas evidentiary hearing; (3) Judge Harmon's

having adopted verbatim the state's proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law on the state habeas proceeding. While the

district court found that these matters had occurred (see note 36,

supra ), it concluded that they did not justify de nying the

presumption of correctness to the state court findings, and further

concluded that it would evaluate each state finding individually in

the light of the entire record, including that of the federal38 The district court stated:

"This Court determines that the irregularities [cited by

Nichols] neither fall within the statutory provisions

which authorize this Court to disregard fact findings nor

do they amount to convincing evidence that all fact

findings were erroneous. Therefore, upon a review of the

entire record, along with this Court's supplemental

evidentiary hearing, the Court will evaluate each finding

of fact individually to determine the proper application

of the presumption of correctness." Id

.

39 The district court rejected this finding "because the record,

as a whole, does not fairly support such factual determination and

because Nichols has established by convincing evidence that . . .

[it] was erroneous." Id . at 75.

40 As previously observed (see note 17, s upra ), we conclude that

the record allows the reasonable inference that bullets fired by

both Williams and Nichols struck Shaffer, alth ough only one was

fatal (or disabling).

44 habeas proceedings. Nichols , 802 F.Supp. at 70. 38 The only state

habeas fact finding which the district court ultimately determined

not to be entitled to the presumption of correctness was the

finding that "[t]he jury was presented with overwhelming evidence

that both the applicant and Williams shot Shaffer," 39 the district

court instead determining "that the only conclusion which the

record supports is that both Williams and Nichols shot at Shaffer

but that either Williams or Nichols actually shot Shaffer." I d

. at

75 (original emphasis). 40

Nichols has not demonstra ted error in the district court's

failing to reject the other state court habeas factfindings. We

conclude that the above-mentioned three circumstances relied on by

Nichols do not, singly or collectiv ely, mandate a contrary

determination. We consider these seriatim

.

With respect to Judge Harmon's having been prosecutor in41 Construing Tex. Const. Art. V, § 11 ("No judge shall sit in

any case wherein

. . . he shall have been counsel in the case") and

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 30.01 ("No judge

. . . shall sit in any

case

. . . where he has been of c ounsel for the State or the

accused"). S ee also Ex parte Miller

, 696 S.W.2d 908, 909 ( Tex.

Crim. App. 1985) (these provisions not violated unless "the judge

actually acted as counsel in the very case before him").

45 Nichols' May 1980 guilty plea to robbery, which prior con viction

had been put in evidence at the punishment stage of Nichols' trial,

we observe that neither the validity of that conviction (and the

related sentence) nor its use at Nichols' sentencing was in any way

at issue in either Nichols' trial (or dir ect appeal) or in his

state habeas proceeding (which comm enced in 1989), or in this

federal habeas. As a matter of Texas law, Judge Harmon clearly was

not disqualified from serving as the habeas trial judge. S ee,

e.g., Hathorne v. State

, 459 S.W.2d 826, 829, 833 (Tex. Crim. App.

1970), c ert. denied

, 91 S.Ct. 1398 (1971). 41 We have previously

indicated that in a comparable position, a federal judge would not

be di squalified under 28 U.S.C. § 455. U nited States v. Outler

,

659 F.2d 1306, 1312-13 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied

, 102 S.Ct.

1453 (1982). See also Adams v. United States , 302 F.2d 307 (5th

Cir. 1962). And, it is settled that "section 455 establishes a

statutory disqualification standard more demanding than that

required by the Due Process Clause." U nited States v. Crouch

, 896

F.2d 78, 81 (5th Cir. 1990).

The complained of remark of Judge Harmon came at a portion of

the state habeas evidentiary hearing dealing with Nichols' effort

to mount a statistical challenge to the Texas capital sentencing

scheme, when "in response to a witness' sugge stion that Nichols'46

counsel could obtain statistical data regarding habeas corpus cases

by issuing a bench warrant to bring each Harris County inmate in

for a hearing, Judge Harmon responded 'Could we arrange for a van

to blow up the bus on the way down here?'" N ichols

, 802 F.Supp. at

79. We are unable to conclude that this clearly inappropriate

remark was anything more than an il l -considered, off-the-cuff

attempt to inject humor into the proceeding. Though the remark was

plainly tasteless and out of place, it does not establish bias and

prejudice. Certainly, there is no indication that Nichols or

either of his counsel so understood the remark at the time. Cf.

Lowenfield v. Phelps , 108 S.Ct. 546, 552 (1988). Moreover, these

remarks were made near the conclusion of a full evidentiary hearing

fairly and impartially conducted with due regard for Nichols'

rights. C f . United States v. Wade , 931 F.2d 300, 302-305 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied , 112 S.Ct. 247 (1991); Pomeroy v. Merit Plaza

Nursing Home , 760 F.2d 654, 657-659 (5th Cir. 1985). "[J]udicial

remarks during the course of a trial that are

. . . disap proving

of, or even h ostile to, . . . the parties, or their cases,

o rdinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge" unless

"they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to

make fair judgment impossible." L iteky v. United States

, 114 S.Ct.

1147, 1157 (1994). No such showing is even approached here.

As for the complaint that Judge Harmon adopted th e state's

proposed findings and conclusions, that is fully answ ered by

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.

, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511

(1985) ("even when the trial judge adopts proposed findings42 The three matters Nichols points to have no meaningful

relevance to whether the hearing was "full" or "adequate," as

distinguished from "fair." In any event, we also conclude that the

hearing was "full" and "adequate."

43 We also observe that the Court of Criminal Appeals on

December 12, 1991, based on its own review of the record,

determined that the habeas trial court' s June 28, 1991, findings

and concl usions were appropriate and denied relief on the basis

thereof. No challenge has been made to the Court of Criminal

Appeals habeas proceedings. C f. Briddle v. Scott

, 63 F.3d 364, 375

(5th Cir. 1995).

47 verbatim, the findings

. . . may be reversed only if clearly

erroneous").

Section 2254(d) requires that state court findings be afforded

a presumption of correctness unless it is shown that one or more of

eight specified exceptions are applicable. The three circumstances

relied on by Nichols are potentially relevant only to the sixth and

seventh exceptions: "(6) that the applicant did not receive a

full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding; or

(7) that the applicant was otherwise denied due process of law in

the State court proceedings;

. . . ." The state habeas court

afforded Nichols SQ represented by two competent lawyers S Q every

opportunity to present his contentions, allowing the filing of an

original and three amended habeas petitions over a period of more

than a year, and conducting an evidentiary hearing with full

opportunity to pr esent evidence, even continuing the hearing in

order for Nichols' counsel to locate an additional witness.

N ichols clearly had a "fair" hearing, 4 2 and was not denied due

process in connection with the state court habeas proceedings. 43

We reject Nichols' contention that the district court erred by48

acc ording the section 2254(d) presumption of correctness to the

state habeas factfindings.

B. Mitigating Effect of Nichols' Character Evidence Beyond

Scope of Special Issues

Nichols argues that the district court erred by failing to

find that the punishment phase special issues (see note 6, supra )

did not allow the jury to give effect to Nichols' mitigating

character evidence. We reject this contention. At the least, the

second special issue concerning future dangerousness provided an

adequate vehicle for the jury to give effect to this mitigating

evidence, placing it within the effective reach of the sentencer,

and there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury would have

found itself foreclosed from thus considering it. The Supreme

Court and this Court have many times so held. S ee Johnson

, 113

S.Ct. at 2669; Crank v. Collins

, 19 F.3d 172, 175 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied

, 114 S.Ct. 2699 (1994); James v. Collins

, 987 F.2d 1116,

1122 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 113 S.Ct. 990 (1993); Barnard v.

Collins

, 958 F.2d 634, 640 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied

, 113 S.Ct.

990 (1993); Graham v. Collins , 950 F.2d 1009, 1030-1033 (5th Cir.

1992) (en banc), aff'd on other grounds

, 113 S.Ct. 2658 (1993).

Cf. Jurek v. Texas

, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2954 ( 1976). No P enry -type

evidence was presented. S ee Penry v. Lynaugh

, 109 S.Ct. 2934

(1989).

C. Complaints of the Prosecutor's Jury Argument

Nichols complains of various instances of allegedly improper

argument by the prosecution, mostly at sentencing, asserting that

he was thereby denied a fair trial and deprived of due process of49

law. We reject this contention, and find no error in the district

court's denial of relief in this connection.

Where improper prosecutorial argument is asserted as a basis

for habeas relief, "'it is not enough that the prosecutors' remarks

were undesirable or even universally condemned,'" rather "[t]he

relevant question is whether the prosecutors' comments 'so infected

the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a

denial of due process.'" D arden v. Wainwright

, 106 S.Ct. 2464,

2471 (1986). In order to constitute a denial of due process "'the

acts complained of must be of such quality as necessarily prevent

a fair trial ,'" Derden

, 978 F.2d at 1457. Moreover, the burden is

on the habeas petitioner to also show a reasonable probability

"that but for these remarks" the result would have been different.

See Felde v. Blackburn

, 795 F.2d 400, 403 (5th Cir. 1986).

Further, failure to object to an argument SQ wholly apa rt from

q uestions of procedural bar SQ is an indication that it was n o t

perceived as having a substantial adverse effect, Derden at 1458,

or would not naturally and necessarily be understood as advancing

improper considerations. M ilton v. Procunier

, 744 F.2d 1091, 1095

(5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied

, 471 U.S. 1030 (1985). S ee also

Lowenfield , 108 S.Ct. at 552.

We now turn to the specific instances complained of by

Nichols.

(i) Nichols initially complains that in argument at the

punishment stage the prosecutor improperly injected religion. No

objection was made to this argument, and on direct appeal the Court44 As we have recognized many times, most recently in Amos v.

Scott

, 61 F.3d 333, 339-3 45 (5th Cir. 1995), the Texas

contemporaneous objection rule is an adequate state procedural

ground on which to base denial of federal habeas review of a claim

denied under Texas law for failure to object.

45 "We ll, better roll out the priest. A man he

had not seen in ten years. All of a sudden we

have a jailhouse Christian. I submit to you

50 of Criminal Appeals held that complaint in this respect was

accordingly waived. N ichols

, 754 S.W.2d at 199-200. The same

holding was made on the state habeas (together with the alternative

holding that on the merits relief was not warranted ). No cause

being shown for the failure to object, the claim is procedurally

barred under the principles of Wainwright v. Sykes and Engle v.

Isaac and their progeny. S ee Andrews v. Collins

, 21 F.2d 612, 628

(5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 113 S.Ct. 2405 (1993). 44

Moreover, the cla im is lacking in merit even if it were not

barred. At the punishment stage the defense introduced testimony

of a priest who, at Nichols' request, visited him several times

while he was in jail awai ting trial. The priest testified on

direct that he had "first met" Nichols ten years earlier, but had

never visited in his home or seen him at church, that while in jail

Nichols' attitude changed from one of depression to remorse and

contrition, and that if given a chance Nichols could become a

constructive citizen. On cross, he admitted that he did not know

what Nichols was doing in the some ten years after he first met him

and when he saw him in jail. The defense, near the end of its

punishment argument, called attention to the priest's testimony.

The now complained of prosecution argument 45 was in response. Thethat this Harris County jail has converted

more sinners than all o f the churches in

Houston, Texas, right up until just after

their t rials. It's interesting for you to

note that the priest n ever said one word to

you about the sacrament of confession. He

s aid not one word to you about conversion to

Christianity."

51 natural understanding of the thrust of this argument is that the

jury could reasonably infer that the priest did not really know

Nichols and that Nichols' supposed change to remorse and contrition

was not genuine. Such a contention is essentially proper. There

is absolutely no reasonable likelihood that these brief passages of

argument (or anything else in the trial) created a meaningful risk

that the jury verdict was to any extent based on Nichols' religious

beliefs (or lack thereof, or on any inference in that regard from

the priest's failure to testify in regard thereto).

(ii) Complaint is also made of prosecution arguments at

sentencing co ncerning the victim's character, which are also

asserted to have been outside the record. Again, there was no

objection to these arguments, and the state habeas court held them

for that reason barred (and, alternatively, not to justify relief

on the merits). This claim is hence foreclosed by the procedural

bar.

It also fails on the merits. The prosecutor's reference to

the grief and loss of the victim's family and his asking the jury

to consider the victim were essentially within the range of

argument held not to offend the Eighth Amendment in Payne v.

Tennessee

, 111 S.Ct. 2597 (1991). This is also the case with46 The part of the argument now so challenged was:

"You ought to be thankful that the State did not choose

to show you the grief or misery of the other family

involved in this. The Schaeffer [sic] family. We could

have put Mrs. Schaeffer [sic] rig ht there on the stand

and let you watch her cry. We could have ask [sic] her

what JoJo Nichols has don e to her life forever . . . I

could have asked . . . who is going to take care of you

in your old age. Surely it's not going to be Joseph

Nichols."

This was immediately followed by the state ment "We chose to

spare you that because it is our duty and your duty to look solely

at the evidence and not cry for either side."

47 Similarly, a defense sentencing witness testified on direct

"my heart goes out to the Shaffer family."

52 respect to the brief reference to Shaffer's employment an d being

killed while at work. There was no argument (or evidence) as to

" opinions of the victim's family about the crime, the defendant,

and t he appropriate sentence." I d

. at 2612 (O'Connor, J.,

concurring). There was nothing so inflammatory about the argument

as to render the entire sentencing proceeding unfair. I d

. at 2612

(O'Connor, J., concurring), 2614 (Souter, J., concurring).

Moreover SQ

and also dispositive of the contention that the argument

went beyond the evidence 46 SQ defense counsel in his argument had

already raised these matters, arguing that "my heart goes out to

his [Shaffer's] family" and "[t]hey [Shaffer's family] have had a

terrible tragedy in their family." 47 Defense counsel further argued

"I doubt very seriously if the Shaffer family would get any

satisfaction from" imposition of the death sentence on Nichols, and

stated "I feel for them but taking Joe's life is not going to help

them a bit" but could "hurt a lot of other folks." Defense counsel48 Complaint is also made that the following two sentencing

arguments were not supported by the evidence: "And he'll gun you

down if he gets the slightest opportunity," and "That's a

lifestyle. Ever since the man has been able to walk he's been

stealing and running wild."

We note to begin with that no objec tion was made to either

argument. No complaint was made on direct appeal or in the state

habeas in regard thereto. It is clear that the Texas

contemporaneous objection rule would bar relief on these claims, as

it did on all Nichols' claims respecting unobject ed to arguments

which were raised in state court. Accordingly, these claims are

subject to procedural bar in federal habeas. T eague

, 109 S.Ct. at

1068-69. We also note that these claims were not raised in the

federal habeas petition belo w, and, although the arguments were

quoted in Nichols' post-evidentiary hearing brief below, Nichols

never sought to amend his petition and these particular claims were

not addressed by the district court. In any event, the claims are

without merit. The first statement is a reasonable deduction from

the evidence, which showed that Nichols shot at Shaffer, less than

two months previously had shot a convenience store clerk who did

not respond fast enough to his demand for money (which he then

continued to demand as the clerk bled), and on being jailed for the

present offense threatened to "shoot any deputy that got in his

way." The second statement S Q facially obvious hyperbole not

intended to be taken literally SQ was preceded by references to

Nichols' February 1979 theft, his April 1980 robbery, his August

1980 robbery where he shot the clerk, his October 11, 1980, armed

robbery, his instant October 13, 1980, offense, and his June 1981

planned armed jail break. The sentences i mmediately following the

"since the man has been able to walk" commen t are as follows:

"That's alm ost three years [1979-1981]. It's not just a few bad

months." It was clear what was intended, and that was entirely

proper.

53 also referred in this connection to the testimony of a defense

sentencing witness who stated he was willing to do "whatever it

takes" (or "whatever needs to be done") for Shaffer. Suffering by

the Shaffer family was a premise the defense had already explicitly

raised and accepted in its sentencing phase arg ument. The

prosecutor reminded the jury "to look solely at the evidence and

not cry for either side." There was no deprivation of due process

or fundamental unfairness in the prosecution's response. 48

(iii) Nichols next complains of two prosecutorial arguments49 This now complained of argument was:

"In our duty to answer th e arguments of the defense

attorney, I ask you, if you will, just take one step back

from their defense and look at it, apply the law of

common sense that you brought into this courtroom, that's

why juries are chosen."

54 at the guilt/innocence stage of the trial which he contends were

"incorrect statements of the legal principles appli cable." No

objection was made to either argument at trial, on direct appeal,

or in the state habeas proceedings. It is clear that the Texas

contemporaneous objection rule would bar relief in state court, and

the claims are accordingly procedurally barred on federal habeas.

Teague

, 109 S.Ct. at 1068-69. S ee a lso Weaver v. McKaskle , 733

F.2d 1103, 1104-5 (5th Cir. 1984); Marks v. Estelle

, 691 F.2d 730,

734-35 (5th Cir. 1982). C f. Bates v. Blackburn

, 805 F.2d 569, 574-

75 (5th Cir. 1986); Webb v. Blackburn , 773 F.2d 646, 650-651 (5th

Cir. 1985). We also note that these claims were not raised in the

federal habeas petition below, a nd, although the arguments were

quoted in Nichols' post-evidentiary heari ng brief below, Nichols

never sought to amend his petition and these particular claims were

not addressed by the district court. See United States v. Smith

,

915 F.2d 959, 964 (5th Cir. 1990).

In any event, these claims have no merit. The first

complained of argument 49 was a proper plea to the jury to use its

common sense in evaluating the defense's contentions as to what had

actually happened. S ee Williams v. Florida

, 399 U.S. 78, 100

(1970) (jury trial calls for "the commonsense judgment of a group

of laymen"). Nichols' appellant's brief does not explain why he50 This now challenged argument was:

"Under our law he is either guilty of capital murder, he

is guilty of murder, or he is not guilty of anything. He

walks right out that door. We can never convict him of

robbery or anything else . . . . The defense is saying

that what you really have here is a situation where there

are cracks in the law and we want you to let JoJo Nichols

slip through these cracks and get away."

51 Defense counsel argued:

"You know, I'm going to say something that I very,

very seldom say as a defense attorney. Joseph Bernard

Nichols

. . . . He's guilty of an aggravated robbery.

And had the State charged him with ag gravated robbery,

you could have retired to the jury room based upon the

facts that you heard from the witness stand and in about

two minutes found him gui lty of a first degree felony.

But they elected to do something other than that. You

know, they already had their pound of flesh.

. . . .

. . . So Joseph Bernard [sic] Nichols is guilty of

aggravated robbery.

But when you look at this charge, you're not

authorized to find him guilty of aggravated robbery

55 thinks this argument was improper nor cite any supporting

authority. We note that the prosecutor had explained at length to

the jury that they were obligated to follow the court's charge, as

did the charge itself. This contention is frivolous. The second

challenged argument 50 was in substance a correct statement of the

law that, under the charge, Nichols could only be found guilty of

capital murder or of murder, or found not guilty. Moreover,

defense counsel did not request a charge on any form of robbery as

a lesser included offense, and no such charge was given. Yet

d efense counsel had argued that Nichols was guilty of aggrava ted

robbery. 51 The state's argument was a proper response and a correctbecause he is not charged with aggravated robbery. He is

charged with capital murder. And in my estimation, the

State misjudged . . . ."

52 The argument was: "Now they want you to pretend that all his

other crimes are just fantasies, those really didn't happen. Grand

juries have indicted them just as he was indicted in this case."

53 There Nichols contended that the argument went beyond the law

and the facts and was hence improper under Texas law.

54 Defense counsel had argued:

56 statement of the law. Nichols cites no authority in support of his

contention. We reject it as frivolous.

(iv) The next complained of argument is the state's reference

at sentencing t o Nichols' having been indicted for the

unadjudicated offenses, evidence of which had been put before the

jury. 5 2 On direct appeal this argument was challenged as being

outside the record (here it is challenged only as an improper

inference of guilt from an indictment), and the Court of Criminal

Appeals held that the contention was barred because n o trial

objection to the argument had been made. N ichols

, 754 S.W.2d at

199-200. Hence this claim is procedurally barred. Moreover,

although this argument of the prosecutor was presented in Nichols'

post-evidentiary hearing brief below, 53 it was never included in his

federal habeas petition or addressed by the district court.

In any event, the claim is without merit. The argument was in

response to defense c ounsel's argument criticizing the state for

n ot having taken action on the unadjudicated offenses, arguing

"there has been no action taken by any other group of individuals

or by the state ." 54 The state responded that another group of".

. . there was at some time later a robbery that he

entered a plea of guilty on and was given probation. You

know that fact. From that point on though, the only

additional thing that you now know is that he is guilty

of this offense because a jury has not had the

oppo rtunity to pass on those other issues even though

those cases have been pending as the record shows for a

long time. There has been no action taken by any other

group of individuals or by the State that would help you

resolve those issues. Never a motion to revoke been

executed on him. It's never been revoked for that

matter. None of the other cases have been brought to

trial . . . ."

55 We also observe that defense counsel had argued at sentencing

that under the law indictments were not evidence. At the

guilt/innocence stage the court had instructed the jury, "A grand

jury indictment is the means whereby a defendant is brought to

trial in a felony prosecution. It is not evidence of guilt . . .

."

56 The complained of arguments at the guilt/innocence stage are:

"If the defense wanted to play this game an d would have been

clever, they would have said this is the bullet that got him. But,

no, they want to play the door game." And, "The defense wants you

to believe Willie ejected that bullet right here in the front door.

Uh huh. Physical evidence caught them again." The challenged

57 individuals had acted, by indictment. Moreover, defense counsel

had previously expressly acknowledged in argument that Nichols had

been charged with attempted escape. The evidence as to the other

unadjudicated offenses SQ the August 13 and October 11, 1980, armed

robberies SQ

was undisputed, and substantial evidence was pr esented

as to the planned escape. There is no reasonable likelihood that

the jury was improperly influenced by this passing rebuttal remark

of the prosecution. 55

(v) Three other prosecutorial arguments, two at the

guilt/innocence stage and one at sentencing, are attacked as having

"improperly struck at Nichols over the shoulder s of his trial

couns el." 5 6 Apart from this general and uninformativesentencing argument is:

"You recall on the question of guilt he sincerely argued

to you that the bullet came from the door. They had

themselves twisted sideways just to where it would come

from the door. Now they have shifted gears that you

don't believe that and now they want the shot to come

over here from the counter fr om Willie Ray Williams.

Aren't you offended by that? Wouldn't you be offended

for a State's attorney to stand up here and shift and

twist and blatantly c hange the proof around? There is

something very wrong with that. I submit to you that you

should be offended by that. Does it ever end?"

57 The referenced guilt/innocence arguments were not complained

of in the federal habeas petition, and the referenced sentencing

argument was mentioned only in the portion of the petition dealing

with the claim that the Williams trial estopped the state from

arguing that Nichols fired the fatal shot. None of the challenged

arguments were addressed by the district court.

58 characterization, Nichols' appellant's brief does not explain the

basis for the challenge and contains no supporting argument. The

complaint is not adequately presented for review. Fed. R. App. P.

28(a)(6); United States v. Beaumont

, 972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir.

1992). Nor was it in the district court. 57 In any event, the

complaints present no basis for relief. To begin with, no

objection was made at trial (or on appeal) to these arguments (and

they were not a grounds of complaint in the state hab eas). They

are hence procedurally barred. Even if they were not, the present

no basis for relief. The brief references at the guilt/innocence

stage to "the door game" and "physical evidence caught them" are

nothing more than argument that the inferences as to what happened

urged by defense counsel were not consistent with the physical

evidence. The sentencing argument referred to the fact that at the

guilt/innocence stage defense counsel argued that Williams fired58 Defense counsel had argued, among other things:

"You've obviously got the testimony of Willie Ray

Williams. I think Willie Ray would have liked to have

heard the testimony in this case before he was in the

posture he was earlier where he got death for this same

transa ction because according to the argument in this

case earlier, Willie didn't do anything. Willie couldn't

have killed the man even though he said he did and even

though his testimony was consistent with the injuries to

the man."

59 the fatal shot from the door as he went back in, while at

sentencing defense counsel ap peared to argue that Williams fired

the fatal shot from "in front of the counter." And, the

prosecution's argument was in response to defens e counsel's

criticism of the prosecution for its asserted inconsistency in the

Williams and Nich ols cases. 5 8 These unobjected to prosecution

arguments did not deprive Nichols of due process or deny him a fair

trial or s entencing, and there is no reasonable likelihood that

they caused the verdict to be to any extent improperly based.

(vi) Quoting a single sentence from the state's argument at

each phase of his trial, Nichols asserts that each "improperly

injected the personal beliefs of the prosecutor into its argument."

Nichols' appellant's brief makes no argument in support of

this assertion, and the complained of sentences are not mentioned

in his federal habeas petition or in the district court's opinion.

Assuming the matter is properly before us, it is procedurally

barred as no objection was made at trial (or on appeal) to either

argument (and neither was raised as a g round for relief in the

state habeas proceeding).

In any event, neither argument presents a basis for relief on59 The now challenged statement closely followed the

prosecutor's statements that at the guilt/innocence stage the jury

had been instructed to require corroboration of accomplice

testimony but had not been so instructed as to the punishment

phase, and that the prosecutor nevertheless would not ask the jury

to believe Martin absent corroboration, which the prosecutor urged

was afforded by the testimony of the guard Garrett and the hidden

gun and knife found in the area of Nichols' cell and Martin's prior

statement. The prosecutor was also responding to defense counsel's

argument that only Nichols and one other were charged in the

escape, though more were involved. The prosecutor stated: "we

only have corroboration as to two others. I wouldn't come to court

to you and say convict a man on t he word of a criminal without

corroboration. We had corroboration as to two others."

60 the merits. The first statement Nichols challenges was made by the

prosecutor during the punishment phase of the trial. Referring to

James Paul Martin, an inmate at the Harris County Jail who

testified that he and Nichols had been involved in an escape plot

while in jail, the prosecutor stated: "I wouldn't come to court to

you and say convict a man on the word of a criminal without

corroboration." Although a prosecutor "may not express his

personal opinion as to the credibility of witnesses, or his own

belief regarding a defendant's guilt," United States v. Walker

, 613

F.2d 1349, 1355 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 100 S.Ct. 2172 (1980), he

may properly comment on the weight of the evidence. S ee Casel

, 995

F.2d at 1309. Here, it is clear from the context in which the

sta tement was made that the prosecutor was not expressing his

personal opinion about the credibility of Martin. Rather, he was

directing the jury to look to other evidence that supported

Martin's testimony, which, becaus e it was the testimony of a

convicted felon, would be suspect standing alone. 5 9 This type of

argument "is permissible to the extent that it draws a conclusion61

based solely on the evidence presented." I d

. (citing United States

v. Enstam

, 622 F.2d 857, 869 (5th Cir. 1 980), c ert. denied

, 101

S.Ct. 1351 (1981); United States v. Bright

, 630 F.2d 804, 824 (5th

Cir. 1980), and United States v. Binker , 795 F.2d 1218, 1223 (5th

Cir. 1986)). Such is the case here.

The second statement which Nichols objects to was made during

the state's argument at the close of the guilt/innocence phase of

the trial. In arguing that Nichols fired the shot that killed

Shaffer, the prosecutor stated: "And I'll tell you it was his hand

that did the killing." Once again, however, Nichols gives an

incomplete picture. Immediately after the prosecutor made the

above-quoted statement, he asked "How do you know that?" and then

proceeded to summarize the evidence presented at trial which would

tend to support the theory that Nichols fired the fatal shot. In

United States v. Morris , 568 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1978), this Court

explained that a prosecutor may state his own opinion or knowledge

of the case as long as he makes it clear that "the conclusions he

is urging are conclusions to be drawn from the evidence." Id . at

401. Here, the prosecutor argued the admitted evidence in support

of the challenged statement. Hence, in the context of the

prosecution's argument the statement was not improper.

(vii) Lastly, Nichols asserts that at sentencing the

prosecution "improperly comm ented on Nichols' failure to call

witnesses or present evidence." Again, without citation to

authority or meaningful argument, Nichols quotes four sentences

which he contends are thus improper. First, during the state's60 The trial court then ruled: "The jury will use their own

recollection concerning the evidence. The objection is overruled."

61 The Court of Criminal Appeals also stated, "Further, any

possible error raised by the trial objection was cured by the

[trial] court's admonishment." Id.

62 argument at the end of the punishment phase of the trial, the

prosecutor stated:

"Why is it that not one, not one employer except a family

friend, Mr. Creal, came and sat here and told you what a

nice worker he was. Not one. Not even a co-worker came

here to verify to you that he actually worked or that he

was a good worker, not one."

Later, the prosecutor commented that "Not one employer, not one coworker, not one school mate, not one neighbor has come here."

Again, these portions of the argument were not complained of

in Nichols' federal habeas petiti on. Moreover, they are

procedurally barred. No objection was made at trial (or on appeal)

to the first argument (and it was not raised as a ground for relief

in the state habeas proceedings). The second argument was objected

to at trial on the ground it was "not a c orrect statement of the

evidence." 60 On direct appeal, Nichols complained that the

statement was improper as "comment on his failure to call

punishment witnesses," and the Court of Criminal Appeals held that

"[b]ecause th e challenge on appeal does not comport with the

objection at trial, nothing is presented for review." N ichols

, 754

S.W.2d at 200. 61

At all events, the claims lack merit. As a matter of Texas

law, the prosecutor may comment on "the defendant's failure to call

a material witness, and he may draw an inference from that failure63

that the testimony would have bee n unfavorable." O 'Bryan v.

Estelle

, 714 F.2d 365, 388 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied

, 104 S.Ct.

1015 (1984); see also O'Bryan v. State , 591 S.W.2d 464, 479 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1979) (en banc), cert. denied

, 100 S.Ct. 2975 (1980).

Moreover, in federal trials, although a party's failure to call a

witness equally available to both sides may not be properly

commented on, if the defendant fails to call a witness peculiarly

within his control, the prosecutor may properly comment on that

failure. U

nited States v. MMR Corp.

, 907 F.2d 489, 501-02 (5th

Cir. 1990), cert. denied

, 111 S.Ct. 1388 (1991). "That the

potential witness is

. . . accessible to service of subpoena by the

court does not make the witness equally available to both parties."

Id

. at 502. The relationship of the witness to a party may make

him or her more available to that party. I d

. Such is the case s ub

judice

. Here, the prosecutor was commenting on Nichols' failure to

call certain types of witnesses during the punishment phase to

establish mitigating circumstances. These types of witnesses are

generally more available to the defense. And, because "the option

o f producing and coming forward with mitigating circumstances is

upon the capital defendant," O'Bryan , 591 S.W.2d at 479, they are

more like ly to be called by the defense. The prosecutor's brief

comment on Nichols' failure to call certain types of good

character witnesses was not clearly improper; certainly it did not

render the sentencing fundamentally unfair or deprive Nichols of

due process.

Nichol s asks that we view all the complained of prosecution64

arguments together. However, even when all are viewed

cumulatively SQ

and even without consideri ng that counsel did not

think the vast majority of them worth complaining of at trial, or

on appeal, or in any of the lengthy a nd frequently amended state

habeas petitions, or, for the most part, in the federal

petition SQ it is entirely clear to us that they did not operate to

deprive Nichols of a fundamentally fair trial at any stage of the

proceedings o r to deny him due process, and that there is no

reasonable likelihood that the jury's verdict at either stage was

improperly affected thereby.

D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Nichols complains of ineffective assistance of trial counsel,

listing in three pages of his brief nine different claims in this

respect. After evidentiary hearings in both the state habeas court

and the district court below, all claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel were rejected by the state habeas trial court, the Court

of Criminal Appeals, and the district court below.

Under Strickland v. Washington

, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), a

h abeas petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel has

the burden to demonstrate both deficient performance and prejudice.

Id

. at 2064. As to the former, judicial scrutiny of counsel's

conduct "must be highly deferential," id

. at 2065, "the distorting

effect of hindsight" is to be avoided, id . at 2065-66, and courts

must "indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls

within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." I d

.

"It is not enough to show that some, or even most, defense lawyers65

would have handled the case differently." G reen v. Lynaugh

, 868

F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 110 S.Ct. 102 (1989). To

establish prejudice, "[i]t is not enough for the defendant to show

that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the

proceeding," Strickland at 2067; rather, he must demonstrate a

"reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional

errors, the resul t of the proceeding would have been different."

Id

. at 2068. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient

to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id

.

Our examination of the record, including that of the habeas

proceedings, reflects that Nichols was represented vigorously and

effectively at trial by his two counsel Lane and Scott, each of

whom had likewise so represented him thro ughout his first trial.

These attorneys were familiar with the facts of the case, made and

procured hearings and rulings on appropriate pretrial motions and

motions to suppress, investigated and presented testim ony, made

objections, presented appropriate jury arguments, and subjected the

state's case to rigorous adversarial te sting and opposition at

trial. Many of the instances of alleged ineffectiveness which

Nichols raises on appeal were not adequately raised below, and

hence are not properly before us. U nited States v. Smith

, 915 F.2d

959, 964 (5th Cir. 1990). But even considering all the claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel raised on appea l, we are

convinced that Nichols has neither overcome the strong presumption

that coun sel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable

professional assistance nor demonstrated any reasonable probability66

that but for the claimed deficiencies the result of the proceedings

w ould have been different. No such probability sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome has been shown. We now briefly

add ress the particular assertions of ineffectiveness raised by

Nichols on this appeal.

(i) Complaint is made that Nichols' attorneys failed to

attempt to delay entry of the July 31, 1981, mistrial o rder in

Nichols' first trial until August 31, 1981, when the 1981 amendment

to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071(e) came into effect providing

that if the jury is unable to answer any punishment special issue

the defendant shall be sentenced to life imprisonment. This

contention materially differs from the only claim mad e below

respecting this subject, which was that counsel was ineffective for

failing to ask the trial court "to set aside the interlocutory

order of mistrial and to sentence" Nichols to life imprisonment "in

accordance with" amended article 37.071(e). In any event, the

present contention, as well as that made below, is without merit,

and under neither theory has either deficient perform ance or

prejudice been demonstrated. On direct appeal, the Court of

Criminal Appeals specifically rejected Nichols' attempt to invoke

amended article 37.071(e), stating "[b]ecause appellant's first

trial was held prior to the effective date of the amendment to

subsection (e), t he amendment has no application." N ichols

, 754

S.W.2d at 204. Nichols cites no authority and makes no meaningful62 In support of his contention made in the district court,

Nichols cited Rodriguez v. State

, 852 S.W.2d 516, 520 (1993), which

held that a trial court had authority to withdraw an order of

mistrial. But that decision S Q rendered more than a decade after

Nichols' second trial SQ was ex pressly predicated on the fact that

the mistrial (w hich was declared out of the presence of the jury

during the course of trial and before the case had been submitted

to the jury) was promptly withdrawn before the jury was discharged

and without the jury's ever having been informed of it. Here the

jury was expressly informed of the mistrial and was completely

discharged by the court on July 31, 1981. The state habeas court

determined SQ

and the Court of Criminal Appeals impli citly

agreed SQ that "the trial court's declaration o f a mistrial in the

applicant's first trial is not an interlocutory order which the

trial court could later withdraw in order to apply the subsequent

ame ndment to Article 37.071(3)." Nothing presented suggests any

basis for us to find this an incorrect statement of Texas law.

63 And, in light of the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals

on direct a ppeal, it is at the best highly doubtful that amended

article 37.071(e) would have applied even if the jury had not been

discharged until September 1, 1981.

67 arg ument, in support of his contention on appeal. 6 2 Nor are we

aware of any such authority. So far as we are able to ascertain,

nothing in Texas law would authorize the trial court to discharge

the jury without declaring a mistrial. And, it would be patently

unreasonable for defense counsel to have urged, or for the trial

court to have ordered, that the jury continue bound to the case for

another month. 63 Moreover, continued deliberations would risk a

"yes" answ er to the single special issue which the jury had not

then unanimously answered in the affirmative.

(ii) Nichols next complains that his counsel failed to

present Williams' testimony as given at his own trial SQ instead of

that given at Nichols' fi rst trial S Q and failed to utilize the

transc ript of Williams' trial on cross-examination of Williams'

prosecutor to force the latter "to admit that Williams was68

convicted as the lone triggerman." These contentions were not

raised below and are not prop erly before us. In any event, they

are wholly without merit. Williams' testimony at his own trial was

not more favorable to Nichols then his testimony at Nichols' first

trial. Indeed, Williams' testimony at his own trial indicated that

when he shot (or shot at) Shaffer f rom the door, he did so in

response to Nichols telling him "shoot-shoot" (see note 2, supra ).

Williams did not mention this in his testimony at Nichols' first

trial. Had this testimony been before the jury, it would have

w holly undercut Nichols' defensive theory that he was not gui lty

even under the law of parties because when Williams fired what the

defense contended was the fatal shot, Nichols had already

completely left and Williams' shot was "the separate act of Willie

Ray Williams, acting independently" for which, under the wording of

the court's jury charge, Nichols would not be responsible. As to

the cross-examination of Williams' prosecutor, what Williams was

convicted of was determinable from, and only from, the record in

that case. We have held that that does not reflect a determination

that Williams was "the lone triggerman." Nor is there any showing

that Williams' prosecutor could possi bly shed any other light on

the matter. The jury had before it the undisputed fact of

Williams' conviction for Shaffer's murder, as well as his testimony

that he shot Shaffer from t he door, causing him to fall back.

Nichols makes no showing of deficient performance or prejudice in

regard to these matters.

(iii) On the basis of April 1992 affidavits submitted after69

the evidentiary hearing below to the district court with Nichols'

m otion to expand the record, which the district court denied,

Nichols contends that defense counsel failed to interview witness

Teresa Ishman, a deli employee, and failed to examine deli employee

Johnson "on the 'triggerman' issue." This issue is not properly

before us. The affidavits are not a part of the record (and no

complaint has been made of the ruling denying the motion to expand

the record); and they were tendered to the district court in

respect to a Brady claim. Further, the issue was not adequately

raised below. The habeas petition only alleged in the most

conclusional form that "Counsel's overall performance, including

the general lack of any investigation, denied petitioner effective

assistance of counsel at both stages of the trial. Counsel's trial

strategy was unreasonable and it was not based on an adequate

investigation." There was no allegation concerning Johnson or

Ishman or the subject matter to which their affidavits are now

alleged to be relevant. These allegations in the petition are

plainly inadequate to raise a constitutional issue in the respect

now asserted on appeal. S ee Ross v. Estelle

, 694 F.2d 1008, 1111-

1112 (5th Cir. 1983); Alexander v. McCotter

, 775 F.2d 595, 602-603

(5th Cir. 1985). The allegations may not be supplemented on

appeal. Alexander at 603.

Moreover, there is no adequate showing o r allegation that

counsel was deficient in this respect. Present counsel, who had

been representing Nichols since sometime before May 1989, took the

position below that they did not find out the information in the64 Her affidavit states that several days later she was

interviewed by "someone from the district attorney's office" and

told hi m what she did see and he took notes, but apparently no

statement was presented to her to review or sign. She had been "in

trouble with the law in Louisiana." Her affidavit indicates that

not long after the offense she moved back to Louisiana, where she

apparently had no telephone.

70 affidavits until early 1992. Nichols suggests no basis on which

trial counsel can be faulted for not pro ducing this information

while excusing habeas counsel for not producing it in the state

habeas or earlier in the federal habe as. Cf. Keeney v. TamayosReyes

, 112 S.Ct. 1715 (1992). Further, the Ishman affidavit states

that she initially told the police that she saw nothing. 64 This was

consistent with Johnson's testimony that when Nichols and Williams

shot at Shaffer, the other deli employee there SQ Ishman (then known

as McGee, which was not her true name) SQ was back in the kitchen or

bathroom and did not come out. As to Johnson, defense counsel had

already reviewed SQ and at trial succeeded in getting before the

jury SQ her written, sworn stateme nt to the police, and there was

nothing to indicate that she had ever said anything else, much less

anything favorable to the defense. Nor do the April 1992

affidavits show a probability of a different result sufficient to

undermine confidence in the outcome. Johnson's affidavit reflects

that just after Nichols shot, and before either Nichols or Williams

left, she saw Williams "leaning across the counter and firing the

s hot that killed Mr. Shaeffer (sic)." This entirely contradicts

the defense theory that the fatal shot was fired by Williams from

the door after Nichols left a nd was thus "the separate act of"

Williams "acting independently" for which under the charge Nichols65 There is nothing to suggest that defense counsel knew or

should have known that Johnson's testimony would (or would likely)

deviate from this aspect of her statement.

71 would not be responsible. Ishman's affidavit mentions only an

initial set of shots fired from the counter area (after which she

ran into the restroom, where Johnson "was already locked in").

Ishman does state Shaffer "went down and reached under the counter

for his gun," but this is just what Johnson's October 13, 1980,

statement SQ

which was before the jury without limitation SQ said. In

Johnson's trial testimony, she admitted making the Octo ber 13,

1980, statement, but said that although Shaffer "went down in a

squat position" she "didn't see him reach for anything." 65 Nichols'

statement and Williams' testimony, both before the jury, were that

Shaffer came up with a gun in his hand.

(iv) Nichols next complains of counsel's failure to object to

the trial court's grant to juror Pearson of an exemption from jury

service for child care under Tex. Govt. Code Ann. § 62.106(2).

Nichols does not explain why the exclusion was erroneous, but it

may possibly have been in that although Pearson had custody of her

two-year-old child, the statute speaks to exclusion for those

having custody of children under ten where the jury service

"requires leaving the chi ld or children without adequate

supervision," and Pearson had sa id she had "a sitter." It is

questionable that constitutionally deficient performance is shown.

Whether a juror is desirable is inherently a matter of judgment,

particularly when, as in Pearson's case, a strong antipathy to66 Pearson had stated "I really don't want to do this" (serve

on the jury).

67 In a single sentence of his appellant's brief, Nichols also

conclusorily asserts that defense counsel inadequately attempted to

72 service is expressed. 66 In any event, prejudice is not

demonstrated. Although the state did not request or suggest

Pearson's exclusion, and Pearson clearly said she wan ted the

exemption, Nichols asserts prejudice because Pearson had indicated

reluctance to impose the death penalty and the state eventually

used all its peremptory challenges. However, at the time Pearson

was excused, the state had used only two of its peremptory

challenges. It cannot be shown that but for her exclusion Pearson

would have served. And, nothing in the record tends to establish

"that, in the absence of defense counsel's errors, a different

factfinder . . . would have been reasonably likely to arrive at a

different outcome." G reen v. Lynaugh

, 868 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir.)

(original emphasis), cert. denied

, 110 S.Ct. 102 (1989). Moreover,

in United States v. Prati

, 861 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1988), we

concluded that the Supreme Court, in Ross v. Oklahoma

, 108 S.Ct.

2273 (1988), "rejected 'the notion that the loss of a peremptory

challenge constitutes a violation of a constitutional right to an

im partial jury.'" I d

. at 87 (quoting Ross

, 108 S.Ct. at 2278).

Instead, "the pertinent inquiry is whether the jurors that actually

sat were impartial as required by the sixth amendment." I d

.

Because Nichols does not assert that his jury was not impartial, he

has failed to demonstrate that his counsel's failure to object to

the exclusion of Pearson was prejudicial. 67rehabilitate and failed t o specifically object to limitations on

voir dire and exclusion of veniremen Day and Joseph Lewis . No

explanation, argument, or citatio n of authority is given, so

nothing is presented for review.

As to Lewis, counsel objected to his exclusion and to not

being allowed to attempt to rehabili tate (as to which nothing

sugge sts possible success), and the Court of Criminal Appeals on

direct appeal fully reviewed Lewis's exclusion and found it proper, noting that "Lewis repeatedly stated that he could not follow the

law of parties and find a nontriggerman guilty of capital murder,

regardless of the evidence" and that after some interim confusion,

which proper explanation by the trial court cleared up, "Lewis

consistently stated that he could not find guilt in any case where

the defendant did not pull the trig ger." N ichols

, 754 S.W.2d at

196, 197. Plainly, no constitutional error is presented by this

ruling. S ee Wainwright v. Witt

, 105 S.Ct. 844 (1988). More to the

point, however, there is no challenge to the underlying rulings and

it is plain there was no failure on the par t of trial counsel to

preserve any claim of error in this respect.

As to Day, no complaint was made on appeal regarding her

exclusion, and the state habeas court held that was a procedural

bar. Trial counsel "excepted" to the exclusion SQ w hich was

sufficient to preserve review as to Lewis S Q but the state habeas

trial court stated that was also insufficient. However, the state

habeas court further held Day was properly excluded. We agree.

Questioning by the state and then by the careful trial court

clearly reflected that she unequi vocally would not under any

circumstances, and regardless of the evidence, consider the death

penalty for a non-triggerman. W ainwright v. Witt

. Neither

deficient perfor m ance nor prejudice is established by defense

counsel's not attempting rehabilitation. Nothing suggests

rehabilitation would have had any reasonable likelihood of success. As to Lewis and Day, Nichols has not preserved in this Court

any complaint and in any event has not shown either deficient

performance or that but for the claimed deficiency there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different.

73 (v) Complaint is next made of defense counsel's failure to

object to an allegedly "improper" shuffle of three venire members.

Nichols does not explain why or in what respect the "shuffle" was

improper and cites no authority indicating that it was. Hence,

nothing is presented for review. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6);

Beaumont at 563. In any event, neither deficient performance nor

prejudice has been shown. Nichols claims that absent the shuffle68 Nichols says nothing about the actual twelfth juror. We also

note that at the time o f the shuffle the state still had one

peremptory strike left.

69 See notes 21 and 22, s upra

, and accompanying t ext. Trial

here was completed in February 1982. E nmund v. Florida was not

handed down until July 1982. Green v. State was decided in 1984.

Indeed, Nichols argues that requesting an anti-parties instruction

"would have been futile at the March [sic] 1982 Nichols II

proceedings."

74 alternate juror Walker, "who would have been reluctant to impose

capital punishment," would have been the twelfth juror. 68 However,

when the three jurors were shuffled, none of them, in cluding

Walker, had been voir-dired

, so the record reflects no basis on

which to conclude that defense counsel should have known or

believed that Walker would be favorable to the defense (or more so

than any other of the three). Additionally, Nichols' assertion

that, absent the shuffle, Walker would serve as the twelfth juror

rather than as an alternate is purely speculative and is

insufficient to establish prejudice.

(vi) Nichols next contends that trial counsel was inadequate

for failing to request an "anti-parties" instruction at the

punishment stage of trial. We reject this contention. At the time

of trial, it was not clearly established Texas or federal law that

such an instructio n, if requested, was required. 6 9 While the law

was not so clear that a request for such a charge could be said to

be plainly futile, this does not mean that counsel was

constitutionally deficient fo r failing to request such a charge.

See Smith v. Co llins , 977 F.2d 951, 960 (5th Cir. 1992), c ert.

denied

, 114 S.Ct. 97 (1993); Selvage v. Collins

, 975 F.2d 131 (5th75

Cir. 1992), cert. denied

, 113 S.Ct. 2445 (1993); Buxton

. Moreover,

a law of parties instruction was not given at sentencing, and it

a ppears clear that all concerned operated on the assumption that

the law of parties did not apply at sentencing. We conclude that

under the circumstances counsel was not constitutionally deficient

for failing to request an affirmative "anti-parties" instruction at

sentencing. Further, for the reasons and authorities previously

recited in connection with the state's appeal (see Part IA, supra ),

we also conclude that Nichols has failed to demonstrate prejudice

from the failure to give an anti-parties instruction. There is no

reasonable probability that the giving of such an instruction would

have altered the outcome. S ee also, e.g., Belyeu v. Scott

,

F.3d , No. 94-50805, slip op. at 391 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 1995).

Finally, this asserted ground of ineffective assistance of counsel

was not raised below.

(vii) Nichols next complains that counsel was deficient for

failing to request a " Penry -type" instruction concerning mitigating

evidence. This contention was not raised below. Moreover, it is

wholly without merit. The case was tried seven years before P enry

.

In any event, the state habeas court did not apply the procedural

bar to this claim, but rather rejected it on the merits. And, we

have held that federal law did not entitle Nichol s to such an

i nstruction (see part IIB, s upra ). Consequently, neither a

deficiency on the part of counsel nor prejudice is shown.

(viii) Complaint is made in general terms that "counsel

failed to object to repeated improper jury argument by the state,"76

but the arguments in question are not identified other than by a

general reference to the section of Nichols' brief complaining of

improper argument, and which particular arguments were not objected

to is not identified. No authorities are cited and no explanation

or meaningful argument is made in the three brief sentences dealing

with this complaint. It is not properly presented to us.

Moreover, it was not raised below except as to those few instances

of prosecutorial argument as to which complaint was made below (see

Part IIC, supra ). The other instances are not properly before us.

In any event, for the reasons stated in Part IIC above, the

arguments in question, singly and collec tively, were not so

improper and prejudicial that the failure to object to any or all

of them can properly be characterized as constitutionally deficient

performance by counsel, or as rendering Nichols' trial as a whole

fundamentally unfair, or as giving rise to any reasonable

probability that had objections been made the result w ould have

been different. Nothing in connection with these complaints serves

to undermine confidence in the trial's outcome.

(ix) Lastly, Nichols makes the conclusory assertion that

trial counsel were ineffective in failing to move for a new trial

on the grounds of their own ineffectiveness at trial. This

contention is frivolous. No procedural bar has been prevented

Nichols from raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel. Moreover,

we have held, as did the district court and the state habeas court,

that Nichols was not denied the effective assistance of counsel at

trial.70 We note that Kirkpatrick is wholly inapposite to this case.

77 In sum, we reject all Nichols' claims on appeal that the

district court erred in denying him relief on his claim of

ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

E. Cumulative Error

Nichols' sole remaining claimon appeal is a three-sentence

argument that the matters of which he complains on appeal (Part

IIA-D), plus those on which the district court granted him relief

and which are the subject of the state's appeal (Part IA-C), amount

to cumulative error under our decisions in Derden and Kirkpatrick

v. Whitley , 992 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1993), 7 0 and denied Nichol s a

fair trial. For the reasons previously noted in addressing these

contentions severally, we find no merit in Nichols' argument.

Reviewing the entire record, we conclude that Nichols has not made

out a case of cumulative error under Derden , and that the matters

complained of did not, singly or in combination, operate to deny

him a fundamentally fair trial, deprive him of due process, or

undermine confidence in the outcome. We accordingly reject

Nichols' contention in this respect.

Having specifically addressed and rejec ted all of Nichols'

points in his cross-appeal, we reject Nichols' cro ss-appeal and

affirm so much of the district court's judgment as denies Nichols

habeas relief.

Conclusion

So far a s it denied Nichols habeas relief, the district78

court's judgment is affirmed. So far as the judgment below granted

Nichols habeas relief, it is reversed and the case is remanded with

instructions to enter judgment denying relief.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.