Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, th e C ourth as de termin ed th at this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 10- 50348

In re : W IL L IA M J O S E F B E R K L E Y , M o v a n t

O rder D en yi n gM ot i on t o A u t h ori ze S econd P et i t i on f

or W ri tof

H abea s C orpu s und er28 U . S. C . § 2244 B ef ore JO L L Y , D E N N IS, an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * W i l l i am Josef

B erkl ey i s schedu l ed t o be executed by t h e State of T exas on A pri l22, 201 0. B e rk ley m oves t h i s C ou rtf or a s t ay of

executi on an d an order aut hor i zi ng th e fi l i ng and c ons i der at i on o f a s ec ond pet i t i on f

orw r i tof

habeas corpus, un der 28 U . S . C . § 2244 (b) ( 3) ( C ) . A f t er c on si deri n g B erkl ey’ s argum en t s, w e D E N Yboth m ot i on s. T h e fa c ts o f th is ca s e h a v e b e e n d o c u m e n te d in p r e v io u s o p in io n s b yth is C o u r t, Ber kley v . Q uar t e r m an , 3 10 F. A pp ’ x 66 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9) ( unpub l i s he d) (p e rcu r ia m ), a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, Ber kley v . Q uar t e r m an (B erkl ey I ) , 5 0 7 F. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 21, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 10-50348 Document: 00511087622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 10- 50348

2 S u p p . 2 d 6 9 2 (W .D . T e x . 2 0 0 7 ). W e re p e a t t h e fa c ts h e r e o n lya s th e yd ir e c tly a ffe c t t h e in s ta n t m o tio n s . S o p h ia M a r tin e z s to p p e d a t a n A T M to m a k e a w ith d r a w a l. B erkl ey I, 507 F. Supp . 2 d at 70 2. Bank s e c ur i t y c am e r as r e c o r de d a m al e w i t h a ha ndg un who ap pr o ac he d M ar t i ne z ’ s v e hi c l e ; s ho ti nt o t he v e hi c l e , a ppa r e nt l y w o undi ng M ar t i nez i n t he head o rfac e; and goti n hercar , w hi c h subs equent l y dr ove aw ay. I d. a t 7 0 2

– 0 3 . B e fo r e tr ia l, B e r k le ym a d e tw o co n fe s s io n s . I d. a t7 0 3

– 0 4 . At t ri al , t h e di st ri ct court ad m i t t ed p ort i on s of t h ose c on fessi on s w h i ch est abli shed Ber kl e y’ s ac c o untof

t he ev e nt s t hatt r ans pi r e d on t he ni ghto f M ar t i ne z ’ s de at h: “h is g u n w e n t o ff a s h e a p p r o a c h e d M a r tin e z ’ s v e h ic le ”; h e “e n te r e d h e rv e h ic le

. . . an d directed h er to d ri ve h er v eh i cl e a w a y from th e A T M to a d ese rted are a ”; w hen t hey r eac hed t he des er t ed ar ea, s he “ i ni t i at ed m ul t i pl e e pi so des of s exual relati on s be tw ee n the m ”; h i s gu n d i sch a rg ed “w h en s h e a ttem p ted to h u g h i m ”;

“ he pass ed out an d di d notw ake up f ors eve r alhour s” ; w hen he aw oke, he s aw M art i n ez l yi n g on t h e groun d; “ h e ‘ f reaked out’an d d rove her car t o an ot h er part o f th e d e sert w h ere h e d rov e itoff the roa d ” an d “he the n w a l k ed h om e.” I d. P o lic e fo u n d M a r tin e z ’ s b o d yth e n e x t d a y . I d. a t 7 0 3 . In t h e in st an tm ot i on s, B erkl ey does n otargu e againstt h e adm i ssi on or con ten t of

h i s con fessi on s or th e A T M v i d eo . In stea d , h e a rg u es th a t t h e S tate u s e d a n o w -d is c r e d it e d th e o r yto c o n n e c tth r e e b u ll e ts r e c o v e r e d fr o m M a r t in e z ’s bod y an d on e f

ou n d i n t h e desertnea rby, to a b u l l etrecovered du ri n g a search of B erkl ey’ s r esi den ce. A tt ri al , an F B I f orensi c exam i n er used the t h eory of C om par at i ve B ul l etLead A nal ys i s ( “ C B LA ”) w h en s he t es t i f i ed t hat al lf

i ve bu l l et s w ere m a n u fact u red f rom t h e sam e “ pot” of l ead . Th e F B I h as si n ce ac kno w l e dg e d t hatt hi s s o r tof t e s t i m o ny i s pr o bl e m at i c be c aus e i tm i ghtl e ad a j u ry t o be l i e ve t hat a “ po t ” i s ve r y s m al l

— pe r hap s as s m al l as a box of am m u n i t i on — w h en i n real i t y a pot m i gh tbe m u ch l arger, t h u s di l u t i n g or ne g a t i ngi t s p r o b a t i v e v a l ue . Be r kl e ya r g ue s t ha tt he a d m i s s i o n o f t hi s CBLA Case: 10-50348 Document: 00511087622 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 10- 50348

3 t est i m on y am ou n t ed to a v i ol ati on of hi s c on st i t u t i on alri gh t s un der B r ady v. Mar y l and , 3 73 U . S. 8 3 ( 19 63 ) a nd G igl i o v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 0 5 U .S . 1 5 0 (19 7 2 ), an d that he i s act u al l y i n n ocent of capi t alm u rder. A tth e v e ry least, B erkl ey a rg u es th a t he h a s m a d e a pr i m a fa ci e sh ow i n g su ff i ci en t f o r t h i s C ou rt t o a u th o r iz e th e filin go f a s e c o n d h a b e a s a p p lic a tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. U n der § 224 4(b) ( 3) ( C ) , “ [ t ] h e court of ap pea l s m ay au t h ori ze t h e f i l i n g of a second or successive ap p li ca ti on onl y i f i tdeter m i n es t h at t h e app l i cat i on m ak es a pri m a faci e show i n g t h at t h e app l i cat i on sati sf i es the requ i rem en t s of t hi s s ubs e c t i o n. ” H e r e , Ber kl e y m us t m ak e a pr i m a fac i e s ho w i ng t h at “ t he f ac t ualpr edi c a te f

or th e claim cou l d n ot h a ve be en discov ere d pr ev i ou slyt hro ugh t h e exerci se of du e di l i gen ce, ” an d t h at “ t h e fact s u n derl yi n g t h e cl ai m , i f proven an d vi ew ed i n l i gh tof t h e evi den ce as a w h ol e, w ou l d be suff i ci en tt o est abli sh b ycle a ra n d co n v in c in ge v id e n c e th a t, b u t fo rco n s tit u tio n a l e r r o r , n o re a s o n a b le fac t f i nderw oul d have f

ound [ B er kl ey] gui l t y of t he under l yi ng of

fens e. ” 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (b )(2 )(B ). A s s u m in gth a t B e r k le yca n m a k e a p r im a fa c ie s h o w in gth a t t h e fla w s in t h e p r o s e c u tio n ’ s b u lle t a n a ly s is co u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e d p r e v io u s ly t h rough t h e exerci se of du e di l i gen ce, hi s c l ai m st i l lfai l s because h e does not m ak e a pr i m a fac i e s ho w i ng t hatb utf o rt he f

l awed bu l l et a nal ys i s , no r e as o nab l e fac t f

i nde rw o ul d ha ve f

o und hi m gui l t y o f

ca pi t alm ur de r . I n fac t , t he C B L At est i m on y w en tt o the gu n ’ s p resence a ta n d u se i n t h e cr i m e, an d w as not used t o p rov e t hatBer kl e y ac t ual l y f i r e d t he g un. Gi ve n t he s t r e ngt h o f t he S ta te ’ s ca s e , w e ca n n o t s a yth a t w ith o u t t h e C B L Ate s tim o n yn o re a s o n a b le fa c t f i n d e rwo u l d h a v e fo un d h i m g u i l t yo f c a p i t a lmu r d e r . B e r k l e y ’ s o wn c o nfe s s i o ns , c o m bi ne d wi t h t he v i de o f r o m t he ATM , e s t ab l i sh t hathe a p p r o a c h e d M a r tin e z a t t h e A T M ; th a t h e s h o t in to h e rca r , a p p a r e n tly w oundi ng heri n t he head; t hat t hey dr ove t o a des er t ed ar ea; that t hey had s e x u a l re la tio n s ; a n d th a t h is g u n d is c h a r g e d a t le a s t o n e m o r e tim e . Case: 10-50348 Document: 00511087622 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 10- 50348

4 A c c or di ngl y, w e D E N Y B erkl ey’ s m ot i ons f ora s t ay o f

ex ec ut i on and an order authori zi n g th e fi l i n g an d consi derati on of a sec on d p et i t i on f

or w ri tof h abea s c orpu s. Case: 10-50348 Document: 00511087622 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 10- 50348

Inot e th at ino ri gin allyapp ointin gc oun se l, the d ist rictc ourtp urp orte d todo so 1 pursuant to 2 1 U .S.C. § 8 48(q). Order of Mar. 31 , 20 06. However , this statuteno longer exi sted at the time. Ith ad b eenrep lace d by18U.S.C. § 359 9, which ha s not since b eensub stantively amen ded. USA PatriotI mprovementan d R eauthoriz atio n Act of 2 005 , Pub. L. No. 1 09-1 77, tit. II , §§ 22 1-22 2, 1 20 Stat. 231 (Mar . 9 , 2 00 6); JudicialAdmini stration and Technical Am e n d m e nt s Ac t o f 2 0 0 8 , Pub . L . N o . 1 1 0
- 4 0 6 , § 1 2 (c) , 1 2 2 S t at . 4 2 9 4 ( Oct . 1 3, 2 008) (amen ding1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 9 9 ( g) t o all o w th e c hi e f j u d ge o f a ny c irc uit t o d e l e g at e hi s o r h er authority to approve expe nses a ssociat ed withrep resentation und er the statute to a“senior” ju dge , inadditio n to an activej ud ge , w ho w as alrea dy allowed tobea designeeof the chi ef j u dge u n de r th e st atute). See also Harb ison , 129 S. Ct . a t1 4 8 7n.3 (not ing thislegisl ative histo ry). Th erefo re, the district co urt must have inte nded to appoint coun sel pursuant to 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 599an d Harbison’san aly si s of th e st atutei s dir ectlyo np oint. 5 D E N N IS , C ir c u it J u d g e , sp e c ia llyco n c u r r in g : I concu r i n t h e den i alof B erkl ey’ s m ot i on s f or authori zati on t o f i l e a successive h abea s p et i t i on a n d f or a st ay of

ex ecuti on . T h e onl y i ssue presented t o t h i s pan eli s w h e t he rBer kley s ati sf i es t h e exact i n g st an da rd f or authori zati on of a success i ve h abea s pet i t i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 22 44 an d t h u s i s en t i t l ed t o a st ay to pursu e t h i s c l ai m . T h e ord er acc u rat el y captures w h y, i n l i gh tof B e r k le y ’ s a r g u m e n ts , h e h a s n o t m e t t h is s ta n d a r d . N onet hel es s, I w r i t e separat el y t o c al lat t ent i on t o a n i ss ue o f gr ave c o nc e r n r ai s e d by t he pr o c e e di ngs i n Ber kl e y’ s c as e . I n t he w e e ks pri or t o t he i n st an tf

i l i n g, t h i s c ou rtw as i n f orm ed by B erkl ey’ s coun selt h at t h ey w ou l d n ot be p ur s ui ng c l e m e nc y o r o t he r no n- ha b e a s r e m e d i e s o r s t a y s o f e x e c ut i on t hat m i gh tbe ava i l able t o B erkl ey, a s they w ere “app oi n t ed sol el y f or t h e pu rpose of t he f e de r alha be as c as e . ” Thi s s t at e m e nta ppe ar s t o r e l y upo n t he w o r di ng o f t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s ord er a p p oin ti n g co u n sel. T h a t ord er a ssign ed cou n sel t o r epr es entB er kl ey i n hi s “ fede r alh abeas cor pus pro c ee di ng. ” O r derof M ar . 31, 2006. H ow ever, th e st at ut e underw hi c h B er kl ey’ s c ounse lw er e a ppoi nt ed, 18 U . S. C. § 35 99 , has r e c e nt l y be e n c o ns t r ue d by t he Supr e m e Cour ti n Harbis on v . B ell , 12 9 S. Ct . 14 81 ( 20 09 ) , t o c o nt ai n a b r o ad e ro bl i ga t i o n o f r e pr e s e nt at i o n. 1 The Cour ti ndi c at e d t hatt he pl ai n l ang uag e o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 59 9( e)

— r e qui r i ng Case: 10-50348 Document: 00511087622 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 10- 50348

6 t hate ac h a t t o r ne y ap po i nt e d un de rt he s t at ut e “ s hal lr e pr e s e ntt he de fe nda nt t hr o ugh o ute ve r y s ubs e que nts t ag e o f a va i l ab l e j udi c i alpr o c e e di ngs , i nc l udi ng

. . . al lavail able post- convic t i on process , t ogether w i t h ap pl i cat i on s f or s t ays of executi on an d oth er app ropri ate m ot i on s and procedu res, an d sh al lal so represent t h e defen da n ti n su ch c o m petency proceedi n gs an d p roceedi n gs f or e xe c ut i ve o ro t he rc l e m e nc y as m ay be av ai l ab l e t o t he de fe nda nt ”

— c o nt r o l s a ny in te r p r e ta tio n o f c o u n s e ls ’d u tie s u n d e rth e s ta tu te . S ee Harbis on , 129 S. C t . at 1 4 8 6 . T h u s, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t fed e ra ll ya p p o in te d co u n se l ar e “a u th o riz e [d ]

. . . t o represent t h ei r c l i en t s i n [ ava i l able] st ate c l em en cy proceedi n gs” an d are “en ti tl e[d] . . . to com p en sa ti on f or th a t rep rese n tati on . ” Id . at1491. Y et , f ol l ow i ng Har bi s o n, w e h ave n oth ad occasi on to m ak e cl ear w h et h er c o uns e l c an be pr o vi de d a na r r o w e ra ppo i nt m e nt , a s m ayha ve b e e n do ne i n t he i ns t antc a s e , t h a n t h e b r o ad e rr e pr e s e nt at i o n de s c r ibe d i n Harbis on . T h i s l eaves an unte nabl e g ap i n ourj uri spr udence and i n t he hi gh l eve lof pr oc edur al pr o t e c t i o ns w e s ho ul d a f f o r d d e at h pe nal t y– e l i gibl e de fe nda nt s . W i t ho ut k n o w in gou r u n d e rs ta n d in gof Har bi s o n, co u n s e l lik e th o s e in th is ca s e co u ld r eas onabl y i nt er pre tthei rm andat e as endi ng onc e t hei rcl i ent ’ s fede r alhabeas pr o c e e di ngs ha ve c o nc l ude d, e ve n t ho ugh t hi s a ppe ar s t o b e c o nt r ar y t o t he S u prem e C ou rt ’ s arti cul ati on of 18 U . S . C . § 3599 ’ s dem an ds. A tt h e sam e t i m e, de fe nda nt s a r e l e f

tw i t ho uta c l e ar c o nc e pt i o n o f t he i r r i ght s o rr e m e di e s i n l i ght o f Harbis on . T h eref ore , I w ri t e separatel y t o cal latt en t i on t o t h e evi den tdu t y of federal l y ap poi n t ed coun selt o represent dea t h row i n m ates i n st ate c l em en cy pr o c e e di ngs i n o r der t o en s ur e “ t hatno pr i s o ne r[ w i l l ] b e putt o de at h wi t ho ut m ea n i n gfu lacce ss to th e ‘ fai l -safe’of ou r j u sti ce sy stem . ” Harbis on , 129 S. C t . at 1491 ( quot i ng Herr er a v . Col l i ns , 506 U . S . 390 , 415 ( 199 3) ) . I f m y readi n g of Harbis on i s c orrec t , federal l y ap poi n t ed coun selm u stt i m el y seek cl em en cy f or Case: 10-50348 Document: 00511087622 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/21/2010N o. 10- 50348

7 a d e a th ro w in m a te w h o re q u e s ts s u c h a p e tit io n . S ee 37 Tex . Adm i n. C ode § 1 4 3 .43 (sta tin gclem e n cy p e tition s m u st b e fi led 2 1 d a y s p rio r to a n ex e cu tion ). Case: 10-50348 Document: 00511087622 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/21/2010