### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 70042
ANTHON Y L P I ERCE Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l e e Cr o s s - Appe l l ant v. RI CK T HALER, DI RECT OR, T EXAS DEP ART M ENT OF CRI M I NAL J US T I CE , C OR RE CT I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DI VI S I ON R espon den t
- A pp el l an t C ross - A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg es . K IN G , C i rcui tJu dg e: T h e p e tit io n e r– a p p e lle e , A n th o n y L . P ie r c e , w a s s e n te n c e d to d e a th in 198 6 i n T exas st ate court f or a m u rder com m i t t ed duri n g t h e course of a robbery in 1 9 7 7
. A fte re x h a u s tin gh is s ta t e -c o u r t a v e n u e s fo r p o s tc o n v ic tio n re lie f in 2 0 0 7 , h e sou gh t h a b ea s reli ef u n d er 28 U
. S

. C

. § 22 5 4 i n fede ra l d i stric t c ou rt. Th e di st r i c t co u rt vac at ed Pi er c e’ s deat h se nt enc e a nd or der ed r es ent enc i ng, fi n d in gth a tth e s t a t u t o r y s p e c ia l is s u e s p r e s e n t e d to t h e j u r y a t P ie r c e ’s sentenci n g di d n otperm i tt h e j u ry t o gi ve m ean i n gf u lconsi derati on an d ef fect t o a l lof P i erce’ s m i t i gati n g evi den ce, as Penry v. Lynaugh , 4 9 2 U .S

. 3 0 2 (19 8 9 ), requ i res. Th e di st ri ct court den i ed P i erce’ s ot h er ass ert ed ba ses f or hab eas rel i ef United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 19, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

2 and de ni e d a c e r t i f i c at e o f a pp eal abi l i t y ( CO A)

. The St at e a ppe al e d t he resentenci n g. Pier ce, i n t u rn, soug h t a C O A f rom t h i s c ou rton si x of t h e i ssues rai sed be f

o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur t
. W e g r ant e d a CO A as t o t w o o f t ho s e i s s u es: W he t her P i e r c e r e c e i ve d i ne f fe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e o f c o uns e la t s e nt e nc i ng, a nd
w h e th e r P i erce w a s m en tall y re tard ed an d the refore i n eli gible f or th e d ea th pen al t y u n der A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 5 3 6 U .S

. 3 0 4 (20 0 2 ). W e no w a ffi rm t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of res en t en ci n g u n der Penry . B ecau se w e af

f i rm res en t en ci n g on t h at basi s, w e do n otadd ress w h et h er P i e r c e ’ s i ne f

fe c t i ve as s i s t anc e o f c o uns e l c l ai m pr o vi de s an al t e r nat e ba s i s for r es ent enc i ng. W e a f f i r m t he distri ct c our t ’ s deni alof habeas r el i ef

and an evi den t i ary h eari n g on P i erce’ s At ki ns cl ai m . Th e reasons f or t h ese r u l i n gs are e x p la in e d b e lo w . I . B A CK GRO UND T h e d i stri ct cou rt’ s ex h a u sti ve op i n i on m ore tha n ad eq u a tel y d ocu m en ts th e fa c tu a l b a c k g r o u n d a n d p r o c e d u r a l d e v e lo p m e n t of th is ca s e . See Pi e r c e v. Q uar t e r m an , N o. H

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

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

. H ere, w e r e c i t e o nl y s o m anyo f t he fac t s a nd p r o c e dur e a s a r e ne c e s s ar y t o o ur an al ysi s of

t h e Penry a nd At ki ns cl ai m s. A n th on y L
. P i erce w a s con victed of ca p i tal m u rd er for the sh oo ti n g d ea th
o f F r e d E uge ne Jo hns o n, t he m ana ge r of a Chur c h’ s Chi c ke n i n H o us t o n, dur i ng a r o bb e r y o f

t hatr e s t aur anto n Augus t 4 , 1 97 7. Pi e r c e ’ s f i r s t t w o c onvi c t i o ns w ere overt u rned by the T exas C ou rtof C ri m i n alA pp eal s ( T C C A ) , i n both cases b eca u se th e t ri a l cou rt h a d i m p rop erly ov erru l ed d efen se co u n sel’ s ch a l l en ge s to
c e r ta in v e n i r e m e m b e r s . S ee P ier ce v. S ta te , 6 04 S. W
. 2d 1 85 ( Tex
. Cr i m . App. 1 9 8 0 ); P ier ce v . S ta te , 696 S

. W
. 2d 899 ( T ex. C ri m . A pp . 198 5)

. Pier ce w as t ri ed
an d conv i ct ed a thi rd t i m e an d sen t en ced t o death i n 198 6. Th e T C C Aaf f i rm ed th e co n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e , P ier ce v. S ta te , 7 77 S. W
. 2d 3 99 ( Tex
. Cr i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ), cer t
. d en i ed , 496 U
. S

. 912 ( 199 0) , an d d en i ed h i s app l i cat i on f or Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

3 p o s tc o n v ic tio n re lie f, Ex pa rt e Pie rce , N o. 15, 8 5 9 -0 3 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. Sept

. 19, 2 0 0 1 ). O n A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , P ie r c e file d a s u c c e s s o r s ta te h a b e a s a p p lic a tio n in
w h i ch h e contended t h at he w as m en t al l y ret arded an d t h eref ore i n el i gi bl e f

or t h e death p en al t y u n der At ki ns . The TC C Adeni ed t he appl i c at i on o n A pri l18, 2 0 0 7
. Ex p art e Pie rce , N o. 15, 859

- 04, 200 7 W L 113 941 4 ( T ex. C ri m . A pp . A pr. 18, 2007)

. Pi er c e f

i l ed a 28 U
. S. C

. § 2254 f ede r al habeas pet i t i on on M ay 9, 2007,
an am ended fed era l habeas pet i t i on o n A ugust30, 2007, and a s uppl em ent al fede r alhabeas pet i t i on o n Jul y 1, 2008. O n cr oss- m ot i on s f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , t h e di st ri ct court gran t ed P i erce h abea s r el i ef

on on e of

hi s s en t en ci n g cl ai m s, concl u di n g t h at t h e speci ali ssues pre se nt ed t o t he j ury att he s en ten ci n g p h as e di d notper m i t t he j ury t o g i ve m e a n in g fu l co n s id e r a tio n a n d e ffe c t t o a ll o f P ie r c e ’ s m itig a tin ge v id e n c e , in
v iola tion of Penry . T h e d i st ri ctcourtden i ed the rem ai n i n g assert ed ba ses f or hab e as r e l i e f

a nd su a sp o n te d e n ie d a C O Ao n th o s e is s u e s . See Pi e r c e v. Q uar t e r m an , N o . H -0 7 -1 5 6 1 , 2 0 0 8 W L 4 4 4 5 0 6 4 ( S .D . T e x . S e p t. 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 ). W e gran t ed a C O Aas t o P i erce ’ s cl ai m s t h at he rec ei ved i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce of
c o u n s e l a t t h e s e n te n c in gp h a s e a n d th a t b e c a u s e h e is m e n ta lly re ta r d e d , h is
exe c ut i on i s pre c l uded by At ki ns . W e o r de r e d ( and hav e r e c e i ve d s e ve r alr o unds of ) sup pl em en t albri ef i n g as t o t h ese i ssues a n d d en i ed a C O Aas t o al lot h er i ssues. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h i s h a b ea s p ro c e e d in gis s u b je c t t o th e A n tit e r r o r is m a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P en al t y A ct (A E D P A ) , 28 U
. S

. C

. § 225 4, becau se P i erce f i l ed hi s f

ederal peti t i on o n M a y 9 , 2 0 0 7 , w e l l a f te rA E D P A ’ s e ffe c tiv e d a te
. Se e Li ndh v
. Mur phy , 521 U
. S

. 320 , 336 –37 ( 199 7)

. U n der A E D P A , a federal courtm ay n otgran t a w ri tof h a b e a s co r p u s “w ith re s p e c t t o a n y cla im th a t w a s a dju d ic a te d o n th e m e r its in S ta te co u r t p r o c e e d in g s ” u n le s s th e s ta te co u r t’s a dj u d i c a t io n : “(1 ) r e s u lte d in
a d e cisio n th a t w a s c o n tra r y to , o r in v o lve d a n u n re a so n a b le a p p li ca tion of, Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

4 c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d Fed e r al l aw, as de t e r m i ne d by t he Supr e m e Cour t of t he U n ite d S ta te s ; o r (2 ) r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n a b le determ i n ati on of

t h e fact s i n l i g h t of

t h e evi den ce presented i n t h e State court proceedi n g. ” 28 U
. S

. C

. § 225 4( d). A “ rul e[ ] of l aw m ay be su f

f i ci en t l y cl ear f

or h abea s pu rposes even w h en [ i ti s] expressed i n t erm s of a gen eral i zed st an da rd
ra th er th a n as a brigh t- l i n e ru l e.” Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 5 2 9 U .S

. 3 6 2 , 3 8 2 (20 0 0 ). T h e r e l e v a n t“ c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a ll a w ” i s t h e l a w t h a t e x i s t e d a t t h e t i me th e s ta te co u r t’s d e n ia l o f h a b e a s re lie f b e c a m e fin a l. S ee A b d u l–K abi rv. Q uar t e r m an , 5 5 0 U .S . 2 3 3 , 2 3 8 (2 0 0 7 ); Wi l l i a ms , 52 9 U
. S

. at 39 0

– 9 4
. Astate
c our t ’ s fac t ualf

i ndi ngs ar e “ pre sum ed t o b e c orrec t , ” al t hough a habeas pet i t i onerm ay r ebutt hi s pre sum pt i on by “ c l earand c onvi nci ng evi denc e. ” 28 U
. S

. C

. § 225 4( e) ( 1)

. W e revi ew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s r ef u salt o hol d an evi den t i ary he ar i ng f

o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. C l ark v. Joh n son , 2 02 F
. 3d 7 60, 7 65– 66 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). I I I . T HE PENRY I S S UE T h e di st ri ctcourtvacated P i erce’ s death sentence an d ordered
r e s e nt e nc i ng af

t e r c o nc l udi ng t hat t he s t at ut o r y s pe c i ali s s ue s pr e s e nt e d t o t he j u ry atsentenci n g an d th e prosecutor ’ s c l osi n g argu m en t s r egard i n g t h ose speci ali ssues precl u ded t h e j u ry f rom g ivi ng m e ani ngf

ulc o ns i de r ati on an d ef fect t o al lof

P i erce’ s m i t i gati n g evi den ce, as Penry re q u ir e s . Pi erc e , 2 0 0 8 WL 444 506 4, at *5. Th e State ap pe a ls, argu i n g t h at t h e speci ali ssues i n fact pe r m i t t e d t he j ur y t o g i ve m e ani ngf ulco ns i de r at i o n and ef fe c t t o t he m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e . The s pe c i ali s s ue s , a s pr e s c r i be d b y a no w - s upe r s e de d v e r s i o n o f t he T exas C ode of

C ri m i n alP rocedure, w ere: 1) W het herPi er c e’ s c onductt hat c ause d Johnso n’ s deat h w as del i berate and un dertaken w i t h t h e reason a b l e expectat i on t hatt he de at h o f

t he v i c t i m o ra no t he r w o ul d r e s ul t ; a nd Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Pierceproperlypreserve d his obj ectio n to the special i ssues, arguing atth e sentencing 1 phaseth at theydid not permit the jury to give meanin gful c onsid er at io n and effect to the mitigatin g evidence. Pi erce requ ested, butwas de nie d, th e fo llo wingj uryin struction: You are herebyin structe d th at yo u cancon sider al l m itigatin g circu mstance s in r e g ar d s t o th e p u ni s h m e nt o f th e d e f e n d a nt h e r e i n . M iti g ati o n will n ot b e def inedfor you; b u ty ou may con sid er theage, race , back ground , se x, his tory, and allmatt ers relate d to this defen dantth at have b eenput b eforeyou. 5 2 ) W h e th e rth e r e w a s a p r o b a b ility th a t P i e r c e w o u ld co m m it f u t u re c ri m i n alact s of vi ol en ce t h at w o u ld const i t u t e a c ont i nui ng t hre att o s oc i et y. S ee T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC
. A NN ., a rt. 3 7 .07 1 (b ) (V e rn o n 1 9 8 1 ); seeal so T EX . 1 C ODE C RIM . P ROC
. A NN . , art
. 37. 071 1 § 1 (V ernon 200 6) ( n ot i n g t h at s u perseded sta tu te a p p li e s to offe n se s c o m m itted b e for e S e p te m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 1 ). A . Th e D i s t r i ctC ourt ’ s O pi ni on T h e di st ri ctcourtsum m ari zed the m i t i gati n g evi den ce t h at Pi erce pr e s e nt e d a t s e nt e nc i ng as i nc l udi ng t hat : Pi e r c e w as y o unga t t he t i m e o f t he
c r im e (h e h a d tu r n e d e ig h te e n ju s t 1 5 d a y s b e fo r e ); h is b e h a v io r in p r is o n w h ile in c a r c e r a te d a t v a r i o u s p o in ts b o th b e fo r e a n d a fte r th e cr im e w a s g e n e r a lly go o d; he w as no ta di s c i pl i ne pr o bl e m as a c hi l d a nd was ho ne s t a nd r e s pe c t f ul to w a r d h is m o th e ra n d a d m itt e d p a s t w r o n g s to h e r ; h e h a dm a tu r e d e m o tio n a lly and s pi r i t ual l y w hi l e i n pr i s o n; a nd h e had dev e l o pe d i nt e l l e c t ual l y and creat i vel y w h i l e i n pri son, i m provi n g h i s verbalabi l i t i es and m ak i n g craf t s, such
a s p i ctu re f

ra m es an d j ew elry b o x e s . P ierce , 2 00 8 W L 44 45 06 4, a t * 2. The di st r i ct c our tr ej ec t ed as unre as onabl e t he TC C A ’ s c onc l usi on t hat t he s pec i al is s u e s p e r m itt e d th e ju r y t o g iv e m e a n in g fu l co n s id e r a tio n a n d e ffe c t t o th is
m i ti ga ti n g ev i d en ce. N oti n g th a t “Penry m akes c l ear t hat j uro r s m ust have an opp ort u n i t y t o f

u l l y consi der t h e m i t i gati n g evi den ce as i t bears on t h e broader q u estion of th e d efen d a n t’ s m ora lcu l p a b i l i ty, ” i d. at *5 ( al t er at i ons and i nt er nal quo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d) , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t o bs e r ve d: Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Pi erce cont ends that ther e was sub stanti al mitigatin g evidence thathis trialcounsel 2 did not pr esentatsent encing . This evidence included that Pierce : was b orderlinementally retarded; wa s severely abu sed b y his alcoholic fath er; gre w up in extreme povertyina violent nei ghborhood; and suffere d from “horrifich ea d ac he s ” and o therh ealth probl ems as a chil d. 6 O n t h e fa c e o f

t h e s p e c i a l i s s u e s , t h e j u r y c o u l d c o n s i d e r s o me of P i erce’ s evi den ce un der t h e f u t u re dan gerousn ess speci ali ssue. F o re x a m p le , P ie r c e ’ s y o u t h a t t h e tim e o f th e o ffe n s e a n d h is beh aviori n pri son are rel evan t t o t h at i ssue. O t h er evi den ce, h ow ever, i s i rrel evan t , or i s onl y p a rt i al l y rel evan t , t o t h e f u t u re danger ous nes s i ss ue, ye tr ai se s q u esti ons abo ut Pi er c e’ s gener al m o r alc ul pa bi l i t y and c har ac t e r . Fo r e xa m pl e, hi s ho ne s t y and r e s p e c t t o w a r d h is m o th e r , h is w illin g n e s s t o a d m it p a s t w r o n g s , h is e f f o r t s t o i m pr o ve hi m s e l f t hr o ugh e duc at i o n, a nd h i s w o r k m ak i ng craf ti t em s hav e litt l e rel evan ce t o f u t u re dan gerousn ess, bu t are rel evan tas t o hi s c h aract er. I d. (cita tion s o m itted ). T h e di st ri ct court al so h el d t h at t h e “Penry vi ol at i on w as ex ac er bat ed by pr o s e c ut i o n c o m m e nt s dur i ng c l o s i ng ar gum e nt , ” w hi c h t he di s t r i c t c o ur t f o und

“ sugge st [ ed] t o t he j ury t hat i tc oul d notc ons i derPi er c e’ s m i t i gat i ng evi denc e a t al l
. . . bu tcoul d consi der only w h et h er t h e State presented suff i ci en t evi den ce to m erit a ‘ ye s’an sw er to th e sp ecial i ssu es.” I d. Th e di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded t hat“ t he s pe c i ali s s ue s i n t hi s c as e , e s pe c i al l y w he n c o ns i de r e d i n l i ghto f t he S t ate’ s c l osi n g argu m en t , vi ol ated P i erce’ s r i gh t s un der Penry . ” I d. at *6. Acc o r di ngl y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tvac at e d Pi e r c e ’ s dea t h s e nt e nc e w i t h i ns t r uc t i o ns t h at t h e st ate court gran ta new sentenci n g h eari n g or r esentence P i erce t o a sentence l ess t h an death i n accor da n ce w i t h T exas l aw i n ef fectat t h e ti m e of P ie r c e ’ s cr im e . B . P i erce’ s A dd i t i on al M i t i gati n g E vi de n ce Pi er c e c ont ends t hat addi t i onalm i t i gat i ng evi denc e t hat he pr es ent ed at
se nt enc i ng and r ai se d i n hi s st at e habe as appl i c at i on a n d fede r alhabeas peti t i on , bu t t h at t h e di st ri ct court di d n otdi scuss i n i t s Penry an al ysi s, provi des f u rt h er s u pp ortf

or the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s con cl u si on . P i erce ci t es t h e t est i m on y of 2 Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Counsel’s failure to pre sent such evidence, however, doe s no t provi de aba sis fora Pen ryc laim , a n d Pierc e do es n ot urge thisevid enceinsupp ort of his Pen ryclaim. “[W]e have h eld that a petitione r cannot b ase a Pen ry clai m on evidence thatcould h ave b eenbut was not proffere d at trial.” Mi n ie l v. C ock re ll , 3 3 9F .3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 03) (int erna l qu ot ationmark s om itte d)

. Th e Tex as Legislature changed the name of the Tex as Youth Council to the Texas 3 Yo uthC om mi ssionin1 9 8 3
. See T e x a s Yo uth C o m m i s s i o n , TY C Hi s tory , at http: //www. tyc. st ate .tx .u s/ab out/his to ry .htm l(la stvis it edF eb ru ary2 3 , 2 0 1 0). 7 h i s mo t h e r , E r l i n e P i e r c e , t h a th e w a s a g o o d c h i l d wi t h fe w b e h a v i o r a lp r o b l e ms unt i lhe w as 13 o r 14 ye ar s o l d, w he n he fe l li n wi t h a c r o w d o f o l de r b o ys w ho
e x e r te d a b a d in flu e n c e . E r lin e P ie r c e fu r th e r te s tifie d th a t, a s a re s u lt o f th is
corr u pti n g i n f

l u en ce, P i erce w as sen t to the T exas Y ou t h C ou n ci l(TY C ) t w i ce 3 f orex t ended j uveni l e de t ent i on s t ays as a young te enage r . Sh e co m m ent ed t hat P ier ce h a d been “ l ocked u p m ost of h i s you n g l i fe, ” so h e “ coul dn ’ t h ave a cha n ce. ” E rl i n e P i erce t est i f i ed that her son h ad regu l arl y att en ded chu rch gr o w i ng up and “ s t i l l ha[ d] t ho s e s am e b e l i e fs ” a f t e r hi s a r r e s t
. Fi nal l y, Er l i ne P ie r c e te s tifie d th a t h e r s o n h a d e m o tio n a lly m a tu r e d a n d im p r o v e d h im s e lf in pr i s o n by f

ur t he r i ng hi s educ at i o n, dev e l o pi ng hi s r e ad i ng s ki l l s , a nd d e ve l o pi ng h i s t al en tf

or artan d w oodw orki n g by m ak i n g j ew el ry boxes an d p i ct u re f ram es f or her. P i erce al so c i t es t h e t est i m on y of Sis t er I sabella E strad a, a pri n ci pa lf or H oly C ross S ch oo li n B a y C i ty, T ex a s. S i ster E str a d a testi fi ed tha t sh e g ot to kno w P i e r c e dur i ng hi s y e ar s o n de at h r o w , a nd s he v i s i t e d hi m r e gul ar l y i n t he f ou r years l ead i n g u p to P i erce’ s thi rd t ri al
. S h e test i f i ed t h at P i erce grew f rom b e i n gd e p r e s s e d a n d a n g r y a b o u t h i s s i t u a t i o n t o b e i n gmo r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g . As h e d e v e l o p e d h i s a b i l i t y t o s p e a k a n d a r t i c u l a t e h i s t h o u g h t s , P i e r c e b e c a me m ore open a n d ab l e t o com m u n i cat e hi s f eel i n gs. Pi e r c e a l s o c i t e s c o m m e nt s b y t he pr o s e c ut o r dur i ng vo i r di r e t hathe assert s “ cond i t i on ed” t h e pros pe c t ive j u rors t o di sregard his m i t i gati n g evi den ce. I n o ne s uc h i ns t anc e , t he pr o s e c ut o r s t at e d: Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

8 Q

. W oul d yo u al so agr ee th a t underourl aw t hat t he age of an i n di vi du al , w h e th e r th at be ol d or youn g age, i n an d of i t sel f does n otgi ve an yon e an y speci alr igh t s? U n der our l aw w h en a person be c o m e s t he a ge o f

1 7 t he y ar e a n a dul t a nd a r e t r e at e d a s s uc h. W ou l d you agree? A

. Y es, si r. Q

. O kay. So i n t hat i nst ance w het hera per so n i s 17 orthey ’ r e 8 5, t he l aw do e s n’ ta s k ho w o l d yo u ar e , w hatc o l o r y o u a r e , w haty o ur j ob i s, w h at your sex i s, w h at your edu cat i on i s, i t asks t h at you f ol l ow c e rta i n norm s and t h ose norm s det erm i n e t h e i n t eract i on b e tw e e n h u m a n b e in g s a n d v io la tio n o f th o s e b e tr ie d b y a ju r y if it be a cri m i nal
. Can y o u f o l l o w t hatc o nc e pti n t he pur po s e s o f o ur l a w? A

. Y es, si r, I bel i eve so. The pr o s e c ut o ral s o so ugh tand ob t ai ne d t he j ur o r ’ s o r alc o nf i r m at i o n t hati f

t he j u ror concl u ded t h at the an sw er to the tw o sp eci alis sues w as “ yes, ” he w ou l d n ot

“ c hang e o ne o f

t ho s e ans w e r s t o no j us t t o pr e ve ntt he de fe nda ntf r o m r e c e i vi ng th e d ea th sen ten ce.” Si m i l ar l y, t o a no t he rpr o s pe c t i ve j ur o r , t he pr o s e c ut o r a s ke d: Q

. N o w , w o u ld y o u a g r e e w i t h m e . . . th a t o u rla w d o e s n ’t di st i n gu i sh as far as f i n di n g som eon e g u i l t y i n the l aw a s i t rel ates to a n in d iv id u a l o n th e b a s is o f th e ira g e o r s e x , t h e irr a c e o r e th n ic back groun d? .

. . I’ m sayi n g t h at ou r l aw , as far as m ak i n g a person g u ilty or b e in gch a rg e d w ith ca p ita l m u rd e r— li k e th a t d o e sn ’t di s t i ngu i s h w he t he r o r no t t hat pe r s o n hap pe ns t o be 17 or 18 or bl ac k orw hi t e o ra d octor orw hat I ’ m s ayi ng i s r ac e, s ex, occu p a ti on , eth n i c b a ck gr ou n d , a s fa r as w h eth er or n ot the y v i olate t h e l a w. A

. I agree. Q

. A n d w ou l d you f eel t h at i f t h e S t ate presented evi den ce t o you o n Spe c i alI s s ue N o . 2 t hatw as be yo nd a r e as o nab l e doub t t hatt he a n sw ert o Spec i alI ss ue N o. 2 s houl d be “ yes ” and yo u f ound t hat perh ap s t h at i n di vi du alw as a pa rt i cul ar age, a y ou n g person or so, Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Abdu l–Kab ir an d Brewer clarifie d a lon g and cont entious lin e of ca ses in w hi ch the 4 Courtgrapp ledwit h whet her theTexas sp ecia l iss uesprovid e a basis for thejury to give meaningful consi derationan d effect to mitigating evide nce inconsideringa death se ntence . See Jurek v. Texas , 42 8 U .S. 26 2 (1 976) (u p ho ld ing the facial c onstitutionalityof the Tex as sp ecial is su esse nte ncing s chem e but le avin groo m f ora s- a pp li edch all en ges); F ra n k li nv . Lynaugh , 48 7 U .S. 16 4 (1 988) (rej ectin g as-applied challe nge, re asoning that evidence of good prisonbehavior did not h ave mitigatin g significance inde pende nt of its rel ev anc e toth e future dan gerou sn es s speci al issu e) ; Pen ry , 49 2 U .S. 30 2 (c oncludin g that h abe as relief was appropriatebe cau se th e specialissu es di d not provide a b asis f orj ur y to givemeanin gful consi derationan d effect to evidence of low I Q, organic b raindiso rder, abu siveupbringing , an d a nti so ci al pe rs on alitydis or de r) ; Graham v. Collins , 50 6 U .S. 46 1 (1 993) (decliningto decide wheth er T ex as specialissu es co uld give co nstitution ally adequat e effect to mitigatin g evidence of goodc ha racte r and yo uthbe cau se l aw was not clearlyestabli shed in 198 4, wh en the co nvictionb ec om e fin al) ; Joh nsonv. T exas , 5 0 9U .S

. 3 5 0( 1 9 9 3) (c onclu din g , ondir ect revie w, that th e pe titio ner’ s youthatth e ti me of the crime coul d begiven meaningful consi deration a n d ef fe ct u n de r th e futured a n gerou sn es s s pe ci al is su e) ; P enryv. J ohnson , 53 2 U .S. 78 2, 7 99 (200 1) (PenryII

) (c onclu din g th at a dditio n al sp ecial in structio n th at allow ed j ury to nullify special i ssues if it conclu ded th at othe r miti gating circumstances existed was con stitution ally infirmb ec au seit “m a deth e j urych arge a s awhol e inte rn allyc ontr a dict ory”) ; Te n n ardv . Dretke , 54 2 U .S. 27 4, 2 84 (20 04) (rej ectin g a h eighten ed-rel evanc e standar d ap plie d byth e Fif thCirc uitth at “h a s nofoun dationinth e de ci sion s of thisC ourt”) ; Smit h v. Texas , 543U.S. 37 (200 4) (pe r curiam) (hol ding th at the special i ssues i n c om bi nationwithgene ral nullification instructiondid not allow the juryto givemeanin gful c onsi derationan d effe ct to mitigatin g evidence of le arning disability , lo w I Q score, childhood abu se, and trouble d u pb rin gin g). 9 w oul d yo u nec es sa r i l y ans w ert hat ques t i on “ no” bec ause of t he age o rde s pi t e w hatt he St at e s ho w e d y o u? A

. N o. T h e S t ate contend s t h at t h e T exas speci ali ssues i n fact perm i t t ed the j u ry t o gi ve m e a n in g f

u lconsi derati on an d ef fectt o al lof

t h e m i t i gati n g evi den ce p rese n ted an d rejects t h e p rop ositi on tha t an y o f th e p rose cu tor’ s com m en ts d u ri n g v oir dire or cl osin g a rg u m en t cou l d h a ve i n terfered w i th the j u ry ’ s ab i l i ty t o do so. C . T h e L ega l F ram ew ork 1. A b d u l–Ka b irand B rew er T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t m o s t r e c e n tly a d d r e s s e d th e T e x a s s p e c ia l is s u e s in A b d u l–K

a b ir , 5 50 U
. S. 2 33 , a nd Bre w e rv . Q uar t erm an , 5 5 0 U .S

. 2 8 6 (20 0 7 ). 4 Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

The Court setout th e thresho ld fo r re levanc e in Tennard v. Dretke , 54 2 U .S. 27 4 5 (2 0 0 4), c om me ntin g : [T]h e meanin g of relevanc e is no different inthe context of mitigatin g evidence introduce d ina capital sente ncingpro ceedingt ha n inany othe r co ntext, and thu s thegene ral evidentiary standard—any tende ncyto make th e e xi stenceof anyfact th at is of con sequ enceto the determinationof the action more probable orl es s p rob ab leth a nit wo uldb e without th e evid ence—app li es . . . . Once this low thresho ld for relevanc e i s met, the Ei ghth Amen dment requires that th e j urybeab le to c onsi der and giveeff ec tt o a capital defen dant’s mitigatin g evidence. 542U.S. at 284–85(intern al quo tation marks omitted). Th e Brewer maj orityemphasiz ed th at the focus of th e relevanc e inquiryis not on the “qu antity , d egr ee , or immutability” of the mitigatin g evidence offered , b utr at her on wheth er the evidence, wh atever it i s, “ha s mitigatin g relevance to the special i ssues” and “maydiminisha defendant’s moral culpability for the crime.” Brewer , 55 0 U .S. at29 4. A footnote of dicta inA b d u l– Ka b ir , ho wever , sugge sts an important limit atio n, stating th at no special instructionis required when the “mitigatin g evidence h as o nlya tenuous conn ectio n—so mear gu abl e relevance—to th e defendant’s moral culpability .” Ab d u l–

Ka b ir , 550 U
. S

. at 254 n.14 (in ter nal quot atio n mark s om itt ed) . An additio nal sp ecia l inst ruc tio n is nece ss ary only “w hent h ed e f enda nt’ s evid encemay have meaningfu lrel ev anc e toth e defendant’s moralculpab ility beyond the scope of th e special issues.” I

d
. at 2 5 4n .1 4(em ph a si s a dd ed ; inte rn al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed). 10 Th es e c as es des c r i be t he “ c l ear l y est abl i she d l aw ” as i t exi st ed i n 1999 and 2001,
r e s pe c t i ve l y, a nd A b d u l–K a b iri ndi c at es t hat t he s am e c l earl y e st abl i she d l aw e x is te d a s e a r ly a s 1 9 9 0
. A b d u l–K a b ir , 5 5 0 U .S . a t 2 3 8 ; B rew er , 550 U
. S. at 294–95. A bd u l–Ka b ir i n st ructs t h at t h e rel evan t st ate- court j u dg m en tf or pur po s e s o f

r e vi e w und e r AE D PA i s t he j udg m e nta dj udi c at i ng t he m e r i t s o f t he peti t i on er’ s s t ate hab eas app l i cat i on . 550 U
. S . at 238
. Th e T C C Arej ect ed P i erce’ s pet i t i on f

or hab eas rel i ef

i n 200 1. Th eref

ore, t h e “c lea rl y est abli shed l aw” de s c r i be d i n A b d u l–K a b ira nd B rew ercontr ol s t h i s c ase. Thi s c i r c ui tha s c o ns t r ue d A bd u l–K a b ira nd B rew er as i m posi n g a tw o- pa rt t estt o deter m i n e w h et h er r esentenci n g i s requ i red: F i rst , t h e revi ew i n g court
m u stdeter m in e w h et h er t h e m i t i gati n g evi den ce presented by t h e peti t i on er s a tis fie s th e “‘lo w th r e s h o ld fo rre le v a n c e ’a r tic u la te d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t.” Coble v . Q uar t e r m an , 496 F
. 3d 4 3 0 , 444 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)

. I f t h e rel evan ce 5 th r e s h o ld is m e t, th e co u r t m u s t d e te r m in e “w h e th e r th e r e w a s a re a s o n a b le Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

B efore Ab d u l–

Ka b ir an d Brewer , this circuit characte riz ed th e standar d as requirin g 6 that th e j urybeab le to “fully co ns id er [ ] and giv[e] full effect to all of th e defendant’s m iti g ati n g evi d e nc e .” N e ls on v. Quarterman , 47 2 F .3d 2 87, 293(5th Cir. 2 006) (enbanc) (c itin g Tennard v. Dretke , 54 2 U .S. 27 4, 2 88–89 (200 4)). Since Ab d u l– Ka b ir an d Brewer , this circuit has conclude d th at the “meaningful effect”an d “full consi derationan d effe ct” standar ds are th e sa me . See Cob le v. Quarterman , 496 F.3d 43 0, 4 47 n.15(5th Cir. 2 007) (rej ectin g the State ’s a ssertionth at the “ m eaningful effect” standard was less stringent; hol ding th at “[r]egardl ess of the descriptor attach ed toit , th e substance of the standard articul ated
. . . i s the same”). This conclusion finds support in Brewer , w hereth e C ourtcritici zed this circuit for applying a “suffici ent effect” test r ath er thana “fulleffe ct” t est in ev alu atin g Bre wer’s h abe as petition. 550 U.S. at 295
. Both parti es cite the “full consi deration and ef f ec t” fo r mulation from Nelsonr ath erth a nth e “m eanin gful ef fe ct” fo rm ulationf

ro m Ab d u l–

Ka b ir an d Brewer
. B ec au sethiscirc uitha s co nclu de d th at th e st a n dard s arei de ntical, see C ob le , 49 6 F .3d at 4 47 n.15 , we cite the Supre me C ourt’s “meanin gful effect” formul atio n. 11 lik e lih o o d th a t t h e ju r y a p p lie d th e s p e c ia l is s u e s in a m a n n e r t h a t p r e c lu d e d it f rom g i vi ng m e ani ngf ulc o ns i de r at i o n a nd e f fe c t t o a l lo f

[ t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s]
m i ti ga ti n g e vid en ce.” I d. Bot h A b d u l–K

ab i r and B rew ere m pha s i z e “ t he i m portance o f a ll ow i n g j u ri es t o gi ve m e ani ngf ulef fectt o any m i t i ga t i ng e v id e n c e p r o v id in ga b a s is fo r a s e n te n c e o f life ra th e r th a n d e a th .” A b d u l–K

a b ir , 5 5 0 U .S . a t 2 6 0 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ); accord B rew er , 550 U
. S. at296 ( “ [ T ] h e j u ry m u stb e a l l ow ed n ot on l y t o con si der such ev i den ce, or t o ha ve such evi denc e b ef

or e i t , butto res pond to i t i n a rea so ned, m or alm anner and t o w ei gh
s uc h e vi de nc e i n i t s ca l c ul us of dec i di ng w he t he r a def e nda nti s t r ul y de s e r vi ng o f d e a th .”). In p a r tic u la r , t h e T e x a s s p e c ia l is s u e s w ill b e co n s tit u tio n a lly

6 i nsuf f i c i en t as appl i ed w hen t he m i t i gat i ng evi denc e pr es ent ed s upport s an

“ ent i r el y di f

fer entr eas on f

ornot i m pos i ng a dea t h se nt enc e” t han per m i t t ed by th e s p e c ia l is s u e s . A b d u l–K a b ir , 5 5 0 U .S . a t 2 5 9
. A b d u l–K a b ira nd B rew eral so i ndi c at e t hatco ur t s sho ul d c o ns i de r w he t he r t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s c o m m e nt s t o t he j u ry m ay h ave “un derm i n ed” t h e j u ry’ s abi l i t y t o gi ve m ean i n gf u lconsi derati on and e f fe c t t o al l o f t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e by s ugg e s t i ng t h at t he j uro r s m ay notc ons i derm i t i gat i ng evi d en ce f orr el evanc e o ut si de t he s pec i al is s u e s . A b d u l–K

a b ir , 5 5 0 U .S . a t 2 6 1 ; B rew er , 5 5 0 U .S . a t 2 9 1
. Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

12 2 . Fra n k lin and P enry The s t and ar d em br ac e d byt he Cour t i n A bd u l–K ab i r and B rew erw as f i rst art i cul ated by Ju st i ce O ’ C o n n o r i n her concu rrence t o Fra n k lin , 487 U
. S. 164. I n Fra n k lin , t he pet i t i onerpr es ent ed e vi d enc e a t s ent enc i ng t hat he had b e h a v e d w e ll in p r is o n . Id
. at1 77
. The pl ur al i t y opi n i on co nc l ude d t hatt he futu re d a n ge rou sn ess sp ecial i ssu e p rov i d ed a su ff i ci en t veh i c le for th e j u ry to
c o n s id e rth e m itig a tin ge v id e n c e . I d. a t 1 79 –1 80
. The pl ur al i t y r ej e c t e d t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s c o nt e nt i o n t hata n a ddi t i o nali ns t r uc t i o n was r e qui r e d be c aus e t he
m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e of go o d b e hav i o r i n pr i s o n ha d r e l e va nc e b e yo nd t he s c o pe o f t h e s p e c ia l is s u e s . I d. a t1 81
. The pl ur al i t y r e as o ne d t hat“ w e ha ve ne ver c o nc l ude d t hatSt at e s c anno t c hann e l j ur y di s c r e t i o n i n c ap i t als e nt e nc i ng” a nd rej ect ed the argu m en ttha tthe j u ry m u stb e a bl e to c on si der m i t i gati n g evi den ce fo re v e r y is s u e to w h ic h it m a y b e re le v a n t. I d. Ju st i ce O ’ C on n or c on curred w i t h t h e pl u ral i t y t h at t h e speci ali ssues w ere c ons t i t ut i onal l y s uf

f i c i entas appl i ed be c ause t he “ pet i t i onerd i d nots ugges tt hat hi s l ac k of

di sc i pl i nary vi ol at i ons [ i n pri so n] r eve al ed a n yth i ng m or e po si t i ve a b o u t h is ch a r a c te r ” t h a n la c k o f fu tu r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s . I d. at 18 6 ( O ’ C on n or, J. , c onc urr i ng)

. Bu tJust i c e O ’ C onnordi sa gr ee d t hatt he s pec i ali ss ues w oul d be
c ons t i t ut i onal l y s uf

f i c i enti f

t he m i ti gat i ng evi denc e pr es ent ed i n fac t had rel evan ce beyon d thei r s cope— f or exam pl e, t o “ p e rs o n alcul pa bi l i t y” or “ch a ra cter. ” I

d. a t1 84 –8 6. She c o m m e nt e d: If

. . . p e tit io n e rh a d in tr o d u c e d m itig a tin ge v id e n c e a b o u t h is bac kgr ound orc harac t erort he c i r c um st ance s of t he c r i m e t hat w as n otrel evan tt o t h e speci al verdi ct qu est i on s, or t h at h ad rel evan ce t o t he def

endant ’ s m or al c ul pabi l i t y beyo nd t he s c ope of t he s pec i al verdi ctqu es t i o ns , t he j ur y i ns t ructi on s w ou l d h ave p rovi ded t h e j u ry w i t h no ve hi c l e f

orex pre ss i ng i t s “ r eas oned m or alr es ponse ” t o t hat e v id e n c e . . . . In m y v ie w , h o w e v e r , th is is n o t s u c h a ca s e . T h e o n ly m i t i gati n g evi den ce i n t rodu ced by p et i t i on er w as t h e st i pu l ati on th a t h e h a d n o r e c o r d o f d is c ip lin a r y v io la tio n s w h ile in p r is o n . . . . W hi l e i ti s t r ue t hat t he j ur y w as pr e ve nt e d f r o m givi ng m i t i ga t i ng Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

13 ef fec tt o t he s t i pul at i on t o t he e xt entt hat i t dem ons t r at ed po si t i ve c har ac t e rt r ai t s o t he rt han t he a bi l i t y t o e xi s t i n pr i s o n wi t ho ut e nda nge r i ng j ai l e r s o rf e l l o w i nm at e s , t hatl i m i t at i o n has no pr a c t i c a l o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n m y v i e w b e c a u s e t he s t ip u la t io n h a s n o r e le v a n c e t o a n y o t h e r a s p e c t o f p e t it io n e r ’s c h a r a c te r . . . . The l i m i t e d pr o ba t i ve va l ue o f t he s t i pul at i on re ga r di ng peti t i on er’ s l ack of pri son di sci pl i n ary vi ol ati on s i s besti l l u st rat ed by the contrast i n g exam pl es of probati ve cha ract er evi den ce sug gest ed by t h e d iss en t
. . . . E vi den ce of vol u n t ary servi ce, k i n d n es s to oth ers, or of reli giou s d ev oti on m i gh t de m on strate p ositive ch a ra cter traits t h a t m i gh t m i ti ga te ag a i n st t h e d ea th p e n a lty
. A lth o u g h p e tit io n e r a r g u e d to th e s e n te n c in gju r y th a t h is pri son record d em on st rat ed h i s l ack of f u t u re dan gerousn ess, pe t i t i o ne r di d no ts ugg e s t t hathi s l ac k o f di s c i pl i nar y vi o l at i o ns rev ea l ed an yth i n g m ore po sit i ve ab ou t his ch a ra cter th a n tha t. I d. at185–86
. T h e C ou rtadop t ed Ju st i ce O ’ C on n or’ s Fra n k lin co n c u r r e n c e in Penry , 492 U
. S

. 30 2 , i n an op i n i on w h i ch Ju sti ce O ’ C on n or also w rote. T h ere , the m aj ority
c onc l uded t hat al t hough t he del i ber at enes s a n d f ut ure danger ous nes s spe c i al i s s u es al l ow ed the j u ry t o gi ve p a rtia l consi derati on t o t h e peti t i on er’ s m i t i ga t i ng evi denc e o f

m ent alr et ard a ti on an d ch i l d h oo d ab u se, th e E i gh th A m en d m en tw as nots a ti sf

i ed be c ause t he m i t i gat i ng evi denc e had “ r el evanc e t o hi s m or al
c u l p a b i l i t y b e y o n d th e s c o p e o f th e s p e c ia l is s u e s , a n d
. . . th e ju r y w a s u n a b le t o express i t s ‘ reasoned m oralrespon se’to tha t ev i den ce i n deter m i n i n g w h et h er d ea th w a s th e a p p rop ri a te p u n i sh m en t. ” Id
. at322. D . A n a ly s is T h e parti es do not di sp u te t h at t h e m i t i gati n g evi den ce t h at Pi erce presented at h i s sentenci n g sati sf i es t h e “ l ow t h reshol d f or r el evan ce art i cul ated b y th e S u p rem e C ou rt. ” C o b le , 4 96 F. 3d a t 4 44 (i nt e r nalqu ot ati on m ar ks
om i t t ed). I n st ead , t h e parti es di spu t e w h et h er the T exas speci ali ssues provi ded t he j ur y w i t h a bas i s t o g i ve m e ani ngf ulc o ns i de r at i o n a nd e f fe c t t o t he Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

14 mi t i g a t i n ge v i d e n c e t h a tP i e r c e p r e s e n t e d
. T h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e S u p r e me Co u r th a s a l r e a d y r u l e d , o v e ra s e r i e s o f c a s e s , t h a t t h e s p e c i a li s s u e s p r o v i de j u rors w i t h a m ean i n gf u lbasi s t o con si der al lof the t yp es of m i t i gati n g evi den ce t h at Pi erce presented at s en t en ci n g. Th e State u rges t h at u n der t h e Penry l i n e, t h e s pe c i al i s s ue s ar e o nl y i nad e qua t e “ w he r e t he de fe nda nt o f fe r s e vi de n ce of
m e nt alr e t ar da t i o n o rm e nt alde fe c t o r c hi l dho o d a bus e o r , pe r hap s , [ c hi l dho o d] h a r d s h ip ”— ty p e s o f e v id e n c e th a t t h e S ta te co n te n d s P ie r c e d id n o t p r e s e n t in t hi s c as e. Pi er c e c ount er s t hat t he Su pre m e C our t has never t aken a c at ego r i c al ap pr o ac h t o de t e r m i ni ng w h et he r t he s pe c i ali s s ue s pr o vi de a b as i s f o r g i vi ng
m e ani ngf

ulc o ns i de r at i o n a nd ef fe c t t o var i o us t yp e s of m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e , a nd h e argu es t h at t h e sp eci alis sues di d n otp rovi de such a b asi s i n this case. Pier ce al so urg es t hat t he pr os ec ut or ’ s c om m ent s t o t he j ury duri ng voi r di re and at
c l o s i ng— w hi c h do w npl ay e d t he m i t i ga t i ng e f fe c t s o f Pi e r c e ’ s yout h a nd
s ugg e s t e d t hatt he j ur y l ac ke d d i s c r e t i o n t o c o ns i de r m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e o ut s i de t h e conf

i n es of t h e speci ali ssues— f u rt h er depri ved t h e j u ry o f a b a sis f or m ean i n gf

u lconsi derati on of

P i erce’ s m i t i gati n g evi den ce. T h e f i rsti ssue i s w h et h er t h e speci ali ssues provi ded a basi s f or t h e j u ry t o gi ve m ean i n gf

u lconsi derati on an d ef fectt o each t yp e of m i t i gati n g evi den ce th a t P ie r c e in tr o d u c e d
. T h e s e c o n d is s u e is w h e th e r th e r e is a re a s o n a b le pro babi l i t y t hat t he pr os ec ut i on’ s voi r di r e q ues t i oni ng orc l os i ng ar gum ents
o p e r a t e d to u n d e r m in e th e ju r y ’s a b il it y to g iv e s u c h c o n s id e r a t io n . P ie r c e ’s mi t i g a t i n ge v i d e n c e fa l l s i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n gg e n e r a lc a t e g o r i e s : y o u t h a t t h e t i me t h e cr i m e w as com m i t t ed, good beh aviorin pri son, t roub l ed chil dh ood, an d good
c h a r a c te r . W e a d d r e s s th e s e c a te g o r ie s o f m itig a tin ge v id e n c e , a n d th e p o s s ib le
e f fe c t s o f t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s c o m m e nt s t o t he j ur y, i n t ur n. 1. You t h and G ood B ehavi or i n P r i s on As t he di s t r i c tco ur tre c o gni z e d, unde r cl e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d f e de r all aw, t he futu re d a n ge rou sn ess sp ecial i ssu e pro vid ed a m ea n i n gfu lba sis for t h e j u ry to Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

15 consi der an d gi ve ef

fectto P i erce’ s you t h

— h e h ad j u stturn ed 18 at t h e t i m e of th e k i l l i n g— a n d h i s go od b eh a vior i n pr i son . In Jo hns o n v . Te x as , 509 U
. S. 350, 36 9 ( 19 93 ) , t he Cour the l d t hatt he f ut ur e dang e r o us ne s s sp e c i ali s s ue g av e t he j u ry “ a m e a n i n gf

u lbasi s t o consi der t h e rel evan t m i t i gati n g qu al i t i es of p eti ti on er’ s yo u th , ” reas on i n g th a t t h e s i g n a tu r e q u a litie s o f y o u th a r e tr a n s ie n t; a s in d iv id u a ls m a tu r e , th e im p e tu o u s n e s s a n d r e c k le s s n e s s th a t m a y d o m in a te in you n ger y ear s c an s ubs i de
. . . . [ T] he r e i s a m pl e r o o m i n t he assessm en tof

f u t u re dan gerousn ess f or a j u ror t o t ak e acc ou n t of t he di f f i c ul t i e s o f

y o ut h a s a m i t i ga t i ng f o r c e i n t he sentenci ng de t e r m i nat i o n. I d. at 368
. Th e A b d u l–K a b irm aj or i t y re i terat ed t hat yo ut h “ has s pec i al
r e le v a n c e t o th e q u e s tio n o f fu tu r e d a n g e r o u s n e s s ” b e c a u s e it is “a u n iv e r s a lly ap pl i cabl e m i t i gati n g ci rcum st an ce t h at every j u ror h as experi en ced an d w h i ch
ne c e s s ar i l y i s t r ans i e nt
. ” 55 0 U
. S. at 26 1. Th e Fr a n k lin pl ur al i t y and
concu rrence ( a tot alof f i ve Ju st i ces) agreed that t h e f u t u re dan gerousn ess sp ecial i ssu e a l so a l l ow s th e j u ry to give m ea n i n gfu lco n sider a ti on a n d e ff ect to a peti t i on er’ s good beh aviori n p ri son. 487 U
. S

. a t 1 77– 78, 1 85– 86. T h e C ou rt h a s n o t o v e r r u le d th is p r e c e d e n t. Se e G ar c i a v . Q uar t e r m an , 257 F. A pp’ x 717, 722 ( 5th C i r. 2007) ( perc uri am ) ( appl yi ng Fra n k lin to r eje c t th e p e t it io n e r ’s Penry c l ai m pr e m i s e d o n m i t i ga t i n g evi denc e o f g o o d b e hav i o r i n pr i s o n)

. The
s pe c i ali s s ue s pr o vi de d a bas i s fo r t he j ur y t o gi ve m e ani ngf ulco ns i de r at i o n a nd
e f fe c tt o t he m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e o f Pi e r c e ’ s y o ut h a nd g o o d b e hav i o r i n pr i s o n. 2. Troubl ed C hi l dhood Pi e r c e a l s o ur ge s a s m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e hi s m ot h er ’ s t e s t i m o ny t hathe
w as a good boy un t i l fal l i n g i n w i t h t h e w rong c row d w h en h e w as t h i rt een or f o ur t e e n ye ar s ol d, and t hathe s pe ntm uc h of hi s y o ungl i fe “ l o c ke d up ” dur i ng tw o e x te n d e d s ta y s in ju v e n ile d e te n tio n a t t h e T Y C

. P ie r c e a r g u e s th a t t h is is
e v id e n c e o f a “t r o u b le d ch ild h o o d ”— e v id e n c e o f a ty p e th a t t h e C o u r t h e ld in Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 15 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

16 A b d u l–K

a b ira nd B re w erha s m i t i gati n g rel evan ce beyon d the speci ali ssues b e c a u s e it b e a r s o n a d e fe n d a n t’s m o r a l c u lp a b ility
. S ee A b d u l–K a b ir , 5 50 U
. S. at 256–5 7 ( n ot i n g t h at evi den ce of a “ rough c h i l dh ood” has “m i t i gati n g f orce b e y o n d th e s c o p e o f th e s p e c ia l is s u e s ”); B rew er , 550 U
. S. at293–94 (f i ndi ng a Penry v iola tion b e ca u se foc u s o n sp e cia l i ss u e s w o u ld “ n e c e ss a rilyd isre g a rd [ ]
an y i n dep en den tconcern t h at, gi ven B rew er’ s t roub l ed ba ckgrou n d, he m ay n ot b e d e s e r v in go f a d e a th s e n te n c e ”). T h e S ta te c o u n te r s th a t P ie r c e ’ s e v id e n c e is di f ferent i n ki n d than t h e “ t roub l ed chil dh ood” evi den ce ati ssue i n t h ose c ases b e ca u se th o se ca se s in v o lve d circ u m sta n ce s o u tsid e th e p e tition e r’s control

— such as povert y an d chi l dho o d a bus e — w hi l e Pi e r ce’ s evi den ce i s l i m i t ed to “h is s e lf-in flic te d p r o b le m s w ith th e la w .” T h e ca se law do es n ot su p p ort th e d i sti n cti on tha t th e S ta te u rg es. In B rew er , f

orex am pl e, t he C our t c onc l uded t hat an addi t i on a l in st r uct i on w as nec es sa r y i n or dert o a l l ow t he j ury t o c ons i derand gi ve ef fec t to ev i denc e t hat t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s “ c o - de fe nda nt , a w o m an w i t h w ho m he w as a ppa r e nt l y o bs e s s e d, dom i n ated an d m an i pu l ated him , ” an d that t h e peti t i on er had a h isto ry of
s ubs t anc e a bus e . 5 50 U
. S. a t2 89 –2 90 (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d)

. The B rew erm aj o r i t y c o nc l ude d t h at the r e w as a r e as o nab l e l i ke l i ho o d t hatt he speci ali ssues led the j u ry to “ di sregard[] an y i n dep en den t concern t h at, gi ven B r e w e r ’ s tr o u b le d b a c k g r o u n d , h e m a y n o t b e d e s e r v in g o f a d e a t h s e n te n c e ,”
a n d th e r e fo r e d e p r iv e d th e ju r y o f t h e o p p o r t u n it y t o r e s p o n d to th e p e t it io n e r ’s
m i ti ga ti n g e vid en ce in a “reas on ed m ora lm a n n er.” I d. at294, 296. Si m i l ar l y, t hi s c i r c ui thas hel d t hat ev i denc e o f a pe t i t i oner ’ s subs t ance abus e m i ght have

“ m e ani ngf

ulm i t i ga t i ng r e l e va nc e b e yo nd i t s t e nde nc y t o di s pr o ve t hat[ t he pe t i t i o ne r ] a c t e d d e l i be r at e l y” a nd t he r e f o r e r e qui r e s a n a ddi t i o nali ns t r uc t i o n. G a rc ia , 257 F
. A pp ’ x at 722 ( i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed). B ot h of t h ese c as e s i nvo l ve d m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e t hatw as ar gua bl y “ s e l f

- i nf l i c t e d” ( t o us e t he St at e’ s t erm ), butr ec ogni ze d t hat t hi s evi denc e m i ght neve r t hel es s have Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 16 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

17 m i t i gati n g rel evan ce t o t h e peti t i on er’ s m oralcul pa bi l i t y— an d theref ore r e l e va nc e o ut s i de t he s pe c i ali s s ue s . The s e ho l di ngs a re consi s t e ntw i t h t he requ i rem en t t h at j u ri es be al l ow ed “t o gi ve m e ani ngf uleff ectt o any m i t i ga t i ng e v id e n c e p r o v id in ga b a s is fo r a s e n te n c e o f life ra th e r th a n d e a th .” A b d u l–K

a b ir , 550 U
. S

. at 260 ( em p h a se s add ed). C on si st en t w i t h t h ese preceden t s, P i erce’ s evi den ce of bei n g l ed ast ray by ol der boys an d being l ocked up f o ra s i gni f

i c antpe r i o d o f

t i m e at t he TY C ha d m i t i ga t i ng r e l e va nc e b e yo nd t he s pe c i ali s s ue s a nd t he r e f o r e r e qui r e d a n a ddi t i o nali ns t r uc t i o n. 3. G ood C harac t er P i erce i n t rodu ced evi den ce of hi s good characterbef ore t h e cr i m e, i ncl udi ng t hat he w as ki nd t o hi s m ot her , w as hones t and adm i t t ed pas t w r ongs t o her, an d regu l arl y att en ded chu rch. Pier ce al so presented evi den ce of h i s good cha ract er as i t dev el oped af t er h e com m i t t ed the cri m e. Th i s evi den ce i n cl u ded th a t h e h a d m a tu r e d e m o tio n a lly a n d s p ir itu a lly w h ile in p r is o n , d e v e lo p in gh is
a b ility to s p e a k a n d a r tic u la te h is th o u g h ts a n d b e c o m in gm o r e o p e n a n d a b le to com m u n i ca te h i s feeli n gs . P i erce a l so m a tu red i n p ri son b y f u rth erin g h is
e duc at i o n, i m pr o vi ng hi s r e ad i ng s ki l l s , a nd d e ve l o pi ng h i s t al e ntf o r a r ta nd
w o o d w o r k in g . I n Fra n k lin , fiv e J u s tic e s ( tw o c o n c u r r in g , t h r e e d is s e n tin g ) in d ic a te d , in di c t a, t hatt he s pe c i ali s s ue s w o ul d no t a l l o w a j ur y t o g i ve m e ani ngf ul consi derati on an d ef fectt o t h i s ty pe of

“ good character” evi den ce. Justi ce O ’ C o n n or’ s c on currence st ated t h at al t h ou gh t h e peti t i on er’ s evi den ce of good beh aviori n pri son l acked rel evan ce t o an y i ssue ot h er t h an f u t u re da n gerousn ess, ha d the peti t i on er presented “ [ e] vi den ce of vol u n t ary servi ce, k in d n e s s to o th e r s , o ro f r e lig io u s d e v o tio n ,” a n a d d itio n a l in s tr u c tio n w o u ld hav e b e e n r e qui r e d: [i]f [t h e ] p e tit io n e rh a d i n tr o d u c e d m itig a tin ge v id e n c e a b o u t h is bac kgr ound orchara c t eror t he ci r c um st ance s of the c r i m e t hat w as Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 17 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

C aliforni a’s deathpenalty statute sets out el even factor s “th at the trierof fact shall 7 take intoac count .
. . if relevant.” R elevanth ere is factor (k), whichin structs the trierof fact to cons ide r “[ a]ny othe r cir cum st ancew hich exten uate s the gravity of the cri meeven though it is not ale gal excu se forth e crime.” CAL . P ENAL C O D E ANN . § 1 9 0 .3 (k) (We st2 0 0 8). As adir ect a pp eal, Boy dewas not governe d byA EDPA . 4 94 U.S. at 3 76. 8 18 n otrel evan tto the speci alv erdi ctqu est i on s, or t h at had rel evan ce t o t he def

endant ’ s m or alc ul pabi l i t y beyo nd t he sc ope of t he s pec i al verdi ctqu est i on s, t he j ur y i ns t r uc t i o ns w ou l d h ave p rovi ded t h e j u ry w i t h no ve hi c l e f

orex pre ss i ng i t s “ r eas oned m or alr es ponse ” t o t hat evi den ce. 487 U
. S

. at 185 –86 ( O ’ C on n or, J. , concurri n g)

. Justi ce Stevens’ s di ssent l i kew i se em ph asi zed that c h aract er evi den ce of t h i s t yp e “ m ay s u ggest t h at t h e condu ct of w hi c h t he def

endant s t ands c onvi c t ed w as noti n keepi ng w i t h hi s orh erusual qu al i t i es ort rai t s, a factt h at has as m u ch rel evan ce t o cul pa bi l i t y as t o f u t u re d a n ge rou sn ess . ” I

d. a t 1 9 0 (S te v e n s, J ., d iss e n tin g ). S i n ce Fra n k lin , the C ou r t’s ju ri sp ru d en ce on C a l i forn i a ’ s d ea th pe n a l ty st atu te h as repeatedl y h el d that c h aract er evi den ce has rel evan ce t o a

7 p e tit io n e r ’ s m o r a l cu lp a b ility
. See , e . g. , Ayers v. B el m on t es , 549 U
. S. 7, 15 ( 2006) (n o tin gth a t g o o d ch a ra cte r e v id e n ce m a y “ex te n u a te [ ] th e g ra v ityo f th e cr im e ”); B row n v. Payton , 544 U
. S

. 133 , 142 –43 ( 200 5) ( com m en t i n g on t h e rel evan ce of g o o d c h a ra cte r e v id e n ce a s a m e a n s o f “l e ss e n [in g ] or ex cu s[in g ] a d e fen d a n t ’s
c u lp a b ility ”); B oy d e v . C a lif o rn ia , 494 U
. S

. 370 , 382 n. 5 ( 199 0) ( com m en t i n g on
r e l e va nc e o f

g o o d c har ac t e re vi de nc e a s a m e ans of s ho w i ng “ c har ac t e r s t r e ngt hs i n t he fa c e o f

. . . d i f f i c ul t i e s ” a nd s ho wi ng t ha t “ c r i m i na l c o nd uc t was an aberrati on fr om otherw i se good ch aract er” )

. E vi den ce of “postc ri m e character 8 tran sform a ti on s” i s also relev a n t: [T ]o acce p t t h e v i e w tha t su ch ev i d en ce co u l d n ot be releva n t t o m o r a l cu lp a b ility ] b e c a u s e it o c c u r r e d a fte r t h e c r im e , o n e w o u ld h ave to r each t h e surpri si n g concl u si on t h at r em orse coul d n ever serve t o l essen or excuse a cr i m e. B u t rem orse, w h i ch by def i n i t i on Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 18 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

19 c an o nl y be e xp e r i e nc e d a f t er a c r i m e ’ s c o m m i s s i o n, i s s o m e t hi ng c om m onl y t hought t o l es se n orex c use a de fendant ’ s c ul pabi l i t y. Br o wn , 5 4 4 U .S . a t 1 4 2

– 4 3 ; seeal so Ayers , 5 4 9 U .S . a t 1 5

– 1 6 (n o tin gth a t it
w oul d be “ c ount er i nt ui t i ve i f a def endant ’ s c apac i t y t o r ede em hi m se l f t hro ugh good w orks [ af

t er the cri m e] cou l d n otex t en u ate h i s of fen se and render h i m l ess d e s e r v in g o f a d e a th s e n te n c e ”). Ayers a nd Bro w n setout t h e cl earl y est abli shed la w a s it e x is te d in 1 9 9 4
. 5 4 9 U .S . a t 1 0 ; 5 4 4 U .S . a t 1 3 9
. Boy de w as a di rect ap pea ldeci ded i n 199 0, w el lbef ore t h e den i alo f

Pi erce’ s s t ate hab eas app l i cat i on bec am e f

i nali n 2001. Al lof

t hes e a ut hor i t i es s etout t he cl ear l y est abl i she d l aw fo rp u r p o s e s o f th is ca s e . The Cour tha s a ddr e s s e d g o od c har ac t e r e vi de nc e i n t he c o nt e xto f t he T exas sp e cia li ssues onl y on ce s i n ce Fra n k lin , i n G r aha m v . Col l i ns , 5 06 U
. S. 4 6 1 (19 9 3 ). T h e S ta te u r g e s tha t G r aha m s t and s f o r t he pr o po s i t i o n t hatt he speci al i ssues al l ow j u ri es t o gi ve m ean i n gf u l consi derati on an d ef fect to g ood
c har ac t e re vi de nc e . I n G r aha m , t he Cour t c o ns i de r e d t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s m i t i ga t i ng evi den ce t h at he ha d a tr an si en t up bri n gi n g, w as a gen erous person, an d “l oved th e L ord
. ” I

d. at 46 4 ( al t e r at i o ns o m i t t e d)

. The Cour t s t at e d, i n di c t a, t hatt he sp ecial i ssu es a l l ow ed the j u ry to giv e a t l ea st s o me ef fectt o t h i s c h aract er ev i d en ce, a n d i n d i ca te d tha t s o me e ffe c t w a s a ll th a t w a s co n s tit u tio n a lly
r e q u ir e d
. I

d. a t 4 7 6

– 7 7
. G r a h a m’ s a c t ualho l di ng, ho w e ve r , w as t hat unde rt he l aw as i te xi s t e d i n 19 84 ( t he ye ar t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s c o nvi c t i o n b e c am e f i nal) t he rel i ef t h at t h e peti t i on er s ou gh tw ou l d h ave con st i t u t ed a n ew rul e, i n vi ol ati on o f Te ag ue v . Lane , 4 8 9 U .S . 2 8 8 (1 9 8 9 ). Id
. at 477. Th e A bd u l–K ab i r m aj ority t o o k p ai ns t o di s t i ngu i s h G r a h a m’ s “ so m e ef

f ec t ” l anguage as di c t a, 550 U
. S. at 25 8– 59 , a s di d t hi s c o ur ti n Nelson , in w h i ch w e rej ect ed the S t ate’ s c on t en t i on th a t G r aha m a l t e r e d th e re q u ir e m e n t t h a t t h e ju r y b e a b le to g iv e “fu ll
c ons i der at i on an d f

ul lef fec tt o t he c api t aldef endant ’ s m i t i gat i ng evi denc e, ” 472 F
. 3d at 298 ( “ B ecau se t h e [ G r aha m ] Cour t di s po sed of the c as e o n Te ag ue Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 19 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

The Statecites severalca s es from this circuit that cite Grahamfor the proposition 9 that “b ecau se ‘th e principalmiti gating thrust of good characte r evide nce is to show that th e defen dantacted atypically in committ in g the capital crime, this evi denc e canfind a dequa te express ion un der the second special issu e .’” Bower v. Dretke , 14 5 F . App’x87 9, 8 85 (5thC ir. 2005) (p er curia m ) ( q u o ting Barnard v. C ollins , 9 5 8F .2 d 6 3 4 , 6 4 0( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 2 )) ; see also Cob le v. Dretke , 4 1 7F .3 d 5 0 8 , 5 2 5 (5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5), withdrawn an d superceded onreh earing, Cob le v.Quarterman , 49 6 F .3d 4 30 (5thC ir. 2 007) (“‘Evidence of go od characte r te nds tosho w that th e crime was an aberration , w hich may supporta ne gative answer to th e specialissu e regardingth e futuredan ger ou s ne s s o f th e defendant.’” (quo ting Boyd v. J ohnson , 16 7 F .3d 907 , 91 2 (5 th Cir. 1 999))). But theseca ses pred ate Abdu l–Kab ir and failto recogniz e th at Grah am ’

s “some effect” lan gu age was dictath at the Supre me C ourtide ntifi ed a s suchin Ab d u l-Ka b ir

an d this co urt h a s since si milarilydis tin guis h ed
. See Nelson , 47 2 F .3d at 2 98, 303
. 20 groun ds, i tdi d n otadd ress t h e sub sta n tiv e m eri t s of t h e peti t i on er’ s Penry cla im .”)

. 9 Bot h A bd u l–K

ab i r and Bre w erem pha s i z e “ t he i m po r t anc e o f a l l o w i ng j u ri es to gi ve m e ani ngf ulef fectt o any m i t i gati n g evi den ce provi di n g a ba si s f or a sen ten ce of l i fe rath er th a n de a th
. ” A b d u l–K a b ir , 5 5 0 U .S . a t 2 6 0 (e m p h a s is adde d )

. The Cal i f

o r ni a c a s e s e s t a b l i s h t ha t g o o d c ha r a c t e r e v i d e nc e has
m ea n i n gfu l relev a n ce t o m ora l cu l p a b i l i ty, w h i ch a m aj ority of th e Ju sti ces in Fra n k lin indic ated is not encom pa ssed by the speci ali ssues. Th ese authori t i es esta b l i sh tha t an ad d i ti on a li n stru cti on w a s req u i red i n ord er for the j u r y to consi der an d gi ve ef

fectt o t h i s m i t i gati n g evi den ce. 4. E f

f ect of C ert ai n C om m en t s t o t h e Ju ry I n A b d u l–K

a b ira nd B rew er , t h e C o u r t i n d ic a t e d th a t a p r o s e c u t o r ’s
com m en ts t o th e j u ry a t vo i r d i re an d a t cl osin g m a y fu rth er im p ed e th e a b i l i ty of t h e j u ry t o gi ve m ean i n gf u lconsi derati on an d ef fectt o m i t i gati n g evi den ce. Pi e r c e c o m p l a i n s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r , a t h i s s e n t e n c i n g , i m p r e s s e d u po n t he j u rors i n cl osi n g argu m en tt h at t h ey coul d n otconsi der evi den ce w i t h rel evan ce beyon d the speci ali ssues: Y ou each p rom i sed m e i n div id u al l y t h at i f t h e State brou gh t you e vi de nc e t hatc o nvi nc e d y o u b e yon d a r e as o nab l e do ubtt hatt he a n sw er s t o t hes e spe c i al i ss ues w oul d be yes and you knew t hat a Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 20 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

21 “ye s” an sw er to ea ch on e of the se issu es w o u ld m ea n the de a th pen al t y t h at you w ou l d an sw er t h ose questi on s “ yes” an d that you w ou l d n ever chan ge you r answ e r d e spi t e t h e evi den ce i n t h i s c ase j us ts o t hatt he de at h pe nal t y w o ul d no t b e i m po s e d. As t he di s t r i c tc o ur to bs e r ve d, t h ese co m m e nt s a r e v e r y s i m i l ar(i nde e d,
ne ar l y i de nt i c al) t o t ho s e t hatt he Cour tc r i t i c i z e d i n A b d u l–K a b ir , i n whi c h t he pros e c ut o rr e m i nde d j ur o r s t hatt he y had “ ‘ pr o m i s e [ d’t o ] l o o k o nl y att he qu est i on s posed by the speci ali ssues, w h i ch, a cc o rd i n g t o t h e prosecutor , requ i r e d t he j ur o r s t o putt he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e “ o uto f [ t h ei r]
m i n d[s ] ” an d “j u stgo by th e fact s. ” 550 U
. S

. at 261
. Th e A b d u l–K a b irC ou rt
c on c l ud e d t ha tt he s e c o m m e nt s h a d t he e f fe c t o f i m p e r m i s s i b l y “ c o nv i nc [ i ng] j u rors tha tthe l aw com pel s them to di sregard t h e f orce of t h e evi den ce of

fered in m itig a tio n ” t h a t h a d re le v a n c e o u ts id e th e s p e c ia l is s u e s . I d. T h e prosecutor ’ s c l osi n g com m en t s i n t h i s c ase are a lso si m i l ar t o t h ose t h at the Cour tc r i t i c i z e d i n B rew er , whe r e t he p r o s e c ut o r u r g e d t he j ur y t hat

“ ‘ you don ’ tha ve t h e pow er t o say w h et h er [ t h e peti t i on er] l i ve s o r di es. Y ou a n s w e rth e q u e s tio n s a c c o r d in gto th e e v id e n c e , m u c h lik e y o u d id a t t h e g u ilt or inn oce n ce [ph a se]. T h a t’ s all
. ’ ” B rew er , 5 5 0 U .S

. a t 2 9 1 (alte ra tion s o m itted ). Fi ndi ng a Penry v i ol ati on , t h e B rew erC o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t “ [t] h e r e [w a ]s s u r e ly
a r e as o nab l e l i ke l i ho o d t hatt he j ur o r s a c c e pt e d t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s a r gum e nta tt he cl ose of t h e sentenci n g h eari n g t h at al lt h ey n eeded to d eci de w as w h et h er B rew er had act ed d el i beratel y an d w ou l d l i kely be dan gerous i n t h e f u t u re, n ecess ari l y di sregardi n g an y i n dep en den t concern t h at, gi ven B rew er’ s t roub l ed bac kgr ound, he m ay not be des er vi ng of a deat h sen ten ce.” I d. at293–94 ( f oot n ot e om i t t ed). T o t h e extent t h at P i erce presented evi den ce t h at c ou l d n ot be g i ve n m e ani ngf

ulc o ns i de r at i o n a nd e f fe c t und e r t he s pe c i ali s s ue s , t he pr o s e c ut i o n’ s c l o s i n ga r g u m e n tmayh a v e e x a c e rb a t e dt h e p r o bl e m b y i ns t r uc t i ng t h e j u ry t o consi der only t h e speci ali ssues. Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 21 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

22 C ert ai n of

t h e prosecutor ’ s com m en t s at voi r di re w ere al so probl em ati c. T h e prosecutorel i ci t ed ag ree m e n t f rom one ven i re m em ber ( w h o w as l ater
s e le c te d to s e r v e o n th e ju r y ) th a t “u n d e r o u r la w . . . th e a g e o f a n in d iv id u a l .
. . i n an d of i t sel f does n ot gi ve an yon e speci al ri gh t s, ” an d t h at “ w h et h er a person i s 17 or t h ey’ re 85, t h e l aw doesn ’ t ask h ow ol d you a re . . . ita sks tha t y ou f ol l ow c er t ai n nor m s a ndt ho s e n o r m s d e t e r m i ne t he i nt er ac t i on be t w ee n hu m an bei ngs and v i o l at i o n o f

t ho s e be t r i e d b y a j ur y . . . . ” The pr o s e c ut o r e l i c i t e d a gr e e m e nt f r om anot herve ni r e m em ber ( al so se l ec t ed t o t he j ury) t hat “ ourl aw , as faras m a k in ga p e r s o n g u il t y o r b e in gc h a r g e d w it h c a p it a l m u r d e r— li k e th a t d o e s n ’t di st i ngui sh w het herornott hat per so n happens t o b e 1 7 o r 18 .
. . a s far as w h et h er ornot t h ey vi ol ate t h e l aw ” an d the st atem en t t h at s h e w ou l d n ot
n ecess ari l y an sw er t h e sec on d speci ali ssue “ n o” becau se of the defenda n t ’ s age. T h e A b d u l-K

a b irm aj o r i t y o bs e r ve d t hatc o m m e nt s l i ke t he s e , w hi c h “ t ak [ e] pa i n s t o convi n ce j u rors t h at t h e l aw com pe ls t h em t o di sregard t h e f orce of evi denc e o f

fer ed i n m i t i gat i on, ” m i ght “ und er m i ne[] ” a j u ry ’ s abi l i t y t o g i ve m eani ngf

ulc ons i der at i on and ef fec t ev en t o e v i d e nc e e nc o m p a ss ed byt he s pec i al i ss ues . 550 U
. S. at261. By es sen ti a l l y i nst r uct i ng t he ve ni r e m em ber s t hat “yo u th i sn ’ t rel ev a n t, ” t h e com m en ts m a y h a ve u n d erm i n ed the j u ry ’ s ab i l i ty to gi ve m i t i gati n g ef

fectt o evi den ce of

P i erce’ s youth throug h t h e speci ali ssues. E . C oncl usi on U n der t h e cl earl y est abli shed l aw , t h e speci al i ssues provi ded a basi s f or t he j ur y t o g i ve m e ani ngf ulc o ns i de r at i o n a nd e f fe c t t o Pi e r c e ’ s m i t i ga t i ng e v id e n c e o f y o u th a n d g o o d b e h a v io r in p r is o n b u t d id n o t p r o v id e s u c h a b a s is f or the re m ai nde ro f Pi e r c e ’ s m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e . The pr o s e c ut o r ’ s c l o s i ng c om m ent s m ay have exac er bat ed t hi s pr obl em by i m pre ss i ng upon t he j ury t hat it s d e li b e r a t io n s s h o u ld b e g u id e d b y th e s p e c ia l is s u e s a lo n e . T h e p r o s e c u t o r ’s
c om m ents a t voi rdi r e m ay have al so underm i ned t he j ury’ s abi l i t y t o g i ve m ean i n gf

u lconsi derati on an d ef fectun der t h e speci al i ssues t o t h e evi den ce of Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 22 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

23 Pi er c e’ s yout h. A c c or di ngl y, w e af f i r m t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s or derof r es ent enc i ng. B ecau se w e af

f i rm on thi s basi s, w e do n otconsi der w h eth er Pi erce’ s c l ai m of i n ef fect i ve assi st an ce of coun sel at sentenci n g provi des an al t erna t i ve basi s f or r e s e n te n c i n g . Acc o r d Be c kha m v . W ai nw r ight , 639 F
. 2d 262 , 265 n. 4 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 8 1 ) (dec l i n in g t o con sider w h eth er th e a l l eg ed de n i a l s of t h e righ t t o confr on t ati on an d ri gh tto j u ry tri alp rovi ded bases f or hab eas rel i ef

an d a n ew tria l be ca u se th e p e tition e r’s i n e ffec tiv e a ss ista n ce cla im p ro v id e d su ch a b a sis ). I V. T HE A T

KI NSC L A IM W e g ra n ted a C O Ao n th e i ssu e of w h eth er P i erce i s i n eli gible f or th e d ea th pen al t y u n der A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 5 3 6 U .S

. 3 0 4 , in w h ic h th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld t h at t h e E i gh t h A m en dm en tf orbi ds t h e executi on of m en t al l y ret arded persons. T h e At ki ns C our t“l e[ f t ] to t he St at e[ s] t he t as k of dev el opi ng appr opr i at e w ays to en force th e con sti tu ti on a l restricti on u p on th eir exe cu ti on of sen ten ces.” I d. at3 17 ( al t e r at i o ns a nd i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d)

. I n Te xa s , a f i ndi ng of m ent alr et ar dat i on r equi r es : ( 1) s i gni f i c ant l y s ub- aver age i nt el l ec t ual f unct i oni ng ( gener al l y, an I Q of 70 or bel ow ) ; ( 2) def i c i t s i n adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng; a n d (3 ) o n s e t b e fo r e a g e 1 8
. Se e Ex p ar t e Br i s e no , 1 3 5 S

. W. 3 d 1 , 7 ( T e x . C r i m. App. 200 4)

. P i e r c e b o r e t he b ur de n o f e s t ab l i s hi ng bya pr e po nde r anc e o f t he
e v id e n c e t h a t h e is m e n ta lly re ta r d e d
. Id . a t 7

– 8 , 1 2 ; W o o ds v . Q uar t e r m an , 493 F
. 3d 580 , 585 & n . 3 ( 5th C i r. 200 3)

. P i erce contend s t h at t h e di st ri ct court erred i n c o nc l udi ng t hatt he s t at e hab e as c o ur t w as no t unr e as o nab l e i n de t e r m i ni ng t h at Pi erce does n otm eett h e T exas defi n i t i on of a m en t al l y ret arded person . A. Bac kgr ound W e bri ef

l y sum m ari ze the evi den ce that the st ate h abea s cou rtconsi dered as t o P i erce’ s At ki ns cl ai m i n ord er to provi de a back groun d f or ou r an al ysi s of P i erce’ s c on t en t i on s. Dr. G eorge D en kow skisubm i t t ed an af f i da vi t f or t h e State. D r . D e nkow skir e vi e w e d d o c um e nt s a nd e xa m i ne d Pi e r c e i n pr i s o n, a d m i n i stering, am ong o t hert es t s, the S tan ford

– B i n et In tel l i ge n ce S ca l es— F i ft h Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 23 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

24 E di t i on ( S B

- 5) an d the A da pti ve B eh aviorA sses sm en t Sy st em (A B A S )

. Pier ce a t t a i n e d a f

u l l

- s c a l e I Q s c o r e o f

8 0 o n Dr
. De n k o ws k i ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e S B5. D r . D enkow skiopi ned thatP i er c e’ s I Q m i ght act ual l y be s l i ght l y hi ghert han th is s c o r e s u g g e s te d b e c a u s e P i e r c e s u ffe r e d fr o m m o d e r a te a n x ie ty a n d m ild dep ress i on , w h ich m a y h a v e su p p re ss e d th e sc o re . P ier ce ’ s A B A S re su lts show ed a si gn i f i can tada pti ve defi ci tonl y i n f u n ct i on alacadem i cs. T h ree expertw i t n esses subm i t t ed aff i da vi t s on P i erce’ s beha l f

. Th e f i rst
ex p ert, D r. Ju n e K a u fm a n , ex a m i n ed an d ev a l u a ted P i erce i n con n ection w i th h i s or i gi n alst ate hab eas app li ca tion in 199 0. D r. K au fm an ’ s af f i da vi t di d n ot in c lu d e a n IQ s c o r e fo rP ie r c e , b u t d id o p in e t h a t h e w a s “fu n c tio n a lly m e n ta lly
r et ar ded” and di spl ayed adapt i ve def i c i t s i n t he form o f “ und er st and[ i ng]
s o c ie ty ’ s b a s ic v a lu e s y s te m s a n d c o n v e n tio n s ,” w h ic h re s u lte d in “e x tr e m e ly poor soci alj u dg m en ti n everyda y l i fe si t u ati on s. ” Th e sec on d exp ert , D r. R i cha rd G arn et t , di d n otexam i n e P i erce bu t di d r evi ew h i s recor ds. D r. G arn et t noted th a t P i erce h a d atta in ed IQ score s ra n gin g from 67 to 81 on va ri ou s tests adm i ni st er ed dur i ng hi s c hi l dhood and you n g adu l t hood a nd obs er ved t hat Pi e r c e a ppe ar ed t o pe r f o r m b e s t i n s t r uc t ur e d s e t t i ngs , a t r ai t c o m m o n a m o ng t h e m en t al l y ret arded
. Th e t h i rd exp ert , D r. R osi n , adm i n i st ered t h e W echsl er A du l tI n t el l i gen ce Scal e I II , on w h i ch P i erce att ai n ed an I Q sc ore of 70. D r. D enkow ski ’ s af

f i davi tques t i oned t h a t sco r e, ar gui ng t hat t he r es ul t w as u n reli a b l e b eca u se D r. R osin h a d ad m i n i stere d on l y a sh ort f orm of th a t t est. D r . Ros i n a l s o c om pl et ed t he Vi ne l and Adap t i ve Beha vi o r Sc al e s us i ng i n form a ti on f

rom P i erce ’ s reco rd s, rep orts from th e A ssistan t W a rd en on de a th
row , an d i n f

orm ati on provi ded by P i erce. D r. R osi n ’ s V i n el an d resul t s s h ow ed
a s i gni f i c anta da pt i ve de f

i c i to nl y i n c o m m uni c at i o n. The St at e ha be as t r i alc o ur t c o ns i de r e d t he s e a f f i da vi t s a nd a do pt e d t he proposed f

i n di n gs of

factan d concl u si on s of l aw subm i t t ed by t h e S t ate. T h ese i nc l u ded t hatt he c o nt e nt s o f D r . D e nko w s ki ’ s a f

f i da vi t

— i nc l udi ng hi s v ar i o us Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 24 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

25 cri t i ci sm s of

P i erce’ s expert s’af

f i da vi t t est i m on y— w ere c redi bl e. Th ese al so i n cl u ded t h at because D r. G arn et t w as not cert i f i ed by t h e T exas D epa rt m en tof M ent alH eal t h and M ent alR et ar dat i on t o m ake a di agnos i s of m ent al
r et ar d a ti on butw as i nst ead a l i c ens ed m ar r i age and fam i l y c ounse l or , he w as no tq ual i f

i e d t o m ak e a di ag no s i s o f m e nt alr e t ar da t i o n und e r Te xa s l aw. The T C C A r eje c t e d t h e s t a t e h a b e a s t r ia l co u r t ’s fi n d in g a s t o D r . G a r n e t t ’s q u a l i fi ca ti on to diag n o s e m en tal retard a ti on , bu t othe rw i se a d op ted the state h a b e a s t r i a lc o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g s o f

fa c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w. I n suppor tof

hi s c l ai m f

orfede r alhabeas r el i ef, Pi er c e s ou gh tan e v id e n tia r y h e a r in gin th e fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t a s to w h e th e r h e is m e n ta lly reta rd ed
. P i erce u rg ed in th e d i stri ct co u rt, a n d co n ti n u es to u rg e i n this cou rt, t hata he ar i ng i s w ar r ant e d b e c aus e t he r e i s “ ne w e vi de nc e ” t hatD r . D e nko w s ki
w as di sc r edi t ed byt he TC C Ai n anot herdeat h penal t y cas e af t erm aki ng s eve r al
m e th o d o lo g ic a l e r r o r s . S ee Exp a rte P la ta , N o. A P- 75820, 2008 W L 151296 ( Tex. Cri m . App. J an. 1 6, 2 00 8) ( pe rc ur i am )

. Pi e r c e c o nt e nds t hatD r . D e nko w s ki
com m i tted so m e of tho se sa m e err ors in the pr ese n t case an d also p oin ts t o ad di t i on alpu rport ed sh ort com i n gs i n D r. D en kow ski ’ s ana lysi s t h at di d n ot
o c c uri n P la ta
. P i erce als o a s s e r ts , f or th e fi rst ti m e on ap p ea l , tha t t h e sta te h a b e a s tri a lcou rt erron eo u sly f ou n d tha t D r. G a rn ett w a s n ot qu a l i fi ed to d ia g n o s e m e n ta l re ta r d a tio n , a n d t h a t a lth o u g h t h e T C C Ad e c lin e d t o a d o p t t h is fin d in g , o th e ro f th e f in d in g s t h a t th e T C C Ad id a d o p t w e r e p r e m is e d u p o n th is fin d in g . Th e di st r i c tcour tdecl i ned to h ol d an evi dent i ar y h ear i ng on t he put at i ve ne w ev i d e n c e a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t a l lo f t h e e r r o r s t h a t Dr
. De n k o ws ki pur po r t e dl y c o m m i t t e d i n P la taei t h er w ere not com m i t t ed i n P i erce’ s c ase or w o u ld n o t h a v e a ffe c te d th e s ta te h a b e a s co u r t’s co n c lu s io n s . P i erc e , 2 0 0 8 WL 444 506 4, at **13– 15. P i erce asks thi s c ou rtt o concl u de that t h e di st ri ctcourt ab us e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n r e f us i ng t o ho l d a n e vi de nt i ar y hear i ng. I n t he Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 25 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

26 al t erna t i ve, P i erce asks, f or t h e f i rstt i m e on ap pea l , t h at t h i s court st ay the case
a n d h old iti n ab ey a n ce w h i l e th e sta te h a b ea s cou rt (to w h i ch h e p rop ose s to
r e pa i r ) c o ns i de r s t he “ ne w e vi de nc e ” a s t o D r . D e nko w s ki ’ s pe r f o r m anc e i n P la ta
. B . At ki ns I s s ues R ai s ed i n t he C O A A ppl i cat i on P i erce’ s C O Aa pp l i cat i on rais ed the f ol l ow i n g f

i ve speci f

i c i ssues as bases f or r el i ef un der At ki ns : 1. As i n P la ta , D r. D en ko w s kii m pr o pe r l y c o nt e nde d t hatde pr e s s i o n a nd an xi et y h ad a sup pressi ve ef fecton P i erce’ s I Q sc ore; 2. As i n P la ta , D r. D en k o w s k i im p r o p e r ly e v a lu a te d P ie r c e ’ s a d a p tiv e d e fici ts an d overst ated t h e i m pa ctof soc i ocul t u ralfact ors on t h ese def i ci t s; 3. D r. D en kow ski i m properl y cri t i ci zed t h e resul t s of IQ t est s adm i n i st ered to P ie r c e b y o th e re x p e r ts a s b e in gle s s re lia b le b e c a u s e o n ly ce r ta in s u b p a r ts w e r e a d m in is te r e d ; 4. D r. D en kow skifai l ed to i n f orm t h e courtof

t h e “ F l yn n E f

fe ct,” w h i ch m i ght have ar t i f

i c i al l y i nf

l at ed Pi er c e’ s I Q sc or e on t es t s adm i ni st er ed by o t he r e xp e r t s i n 19 75 and 19 76
. D r . D e nko w s kia l s o fai l e d t o i nf o r m t he c o u r tt h a tt h e s e s a me t e s t s m a y b e s t r u c t u r e d s o a s t o o v e r r e p r e s e n tI Q; and 5. Th e s t at e habe as t r i alc our t m ade a cl ear l y er r oneo us f i ndi ng of

fac t t hat one of Pi er c e’ s expe r t s, D r . G ar net t , w as notqual i f i ed t o di agnos e m ent al r e t ar da t i o n. Al t ho ugh t he TCC A d e c l i ne d t o a do ptt hi s f i ndi ng o f

fac t , t he s t at e ha be as t r i alc o ur t ’ s o t he r f i ndi ngs o f fac t as t o D r . G ar ne t t , w hi c h t he T C C Ad id a d o p t, im p r o p e r ly re lie d o n th is e r r o n e o u s fin d in g . In gra n ti n g a C O A , w e d i rected P i erce to “ p rov i d e a reco rd ci tati on to
w her e e ac h suc h i ss ue w as r ai se d bef or e t he s t at e habe as c ou rt and fede r al di s t r i c tc o ur t

— o r , i f

t he i s s ue w as no t r ai s e d i n t he s e fo r um s , t o ex pl ai n why t he i ssu e cou l d n ot h a ve be en raised the re.” C . A n a ly s is F or th e fi rst tw o issu es o n w h i ch w e gr a n ted a C O A , P i erce con ten d s th a t,
as i n P la ta , D r . D enkow skii m pro per l y t es t i f i ed t hat depr es si on and anxi et y had Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 26 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

I n anyevent, to the extentth at Dr. Denkowski might have committed theseerrors 10 inPierc e’ s c a se , th e facto f th es e erro rswo uldnotb e “n ewevid ence” i nli ght of Pla tab ec au se theseerrors werefactual in nature and coul d have b eenide ntifi ed b y Pi erce’ s experts b efore Pla tawas publi shed. P ie r ce submitte d th e affidavit testimony of three expert witnesses on mental r etar datio n in conn ectio n with his s t at e habe as applicationan d fede ral hab eas petition. Non e of th ese affidavits cited anyerrors in Dr. Denkowski’s affidavit. 27 a d e p r e s s iv e e ffe c to n P ie r c e ’s I Q s c o r e a n d im p r o p e r ly e v a lu a t e d P ie r c e ’s ad ap tiv e d e ficits, o v e rs ta tin gth e im p a ct o f so cio cu ltu ra l fa cto rs on th e se def i ci t s. B u t t h e d i stri ct cou rt ad d ress ed bo th of th e se a rg u m en ts. A s to P i erce ’ s IQ
s c o r e , t he di s t r i c tc o ur to bs e r ve d t hati n Pi e r c e ’ s c as e , unl i ke i n P la ta , “ D r. D en k ow sk i d i d n ot h a ve to rely on cl a i m s of cl i n i ca l j u d gm en t to a ch i ev e a n IQ
scor e th a t is a b ov e th e m en tall y reta rd ed ra n ge . ” P i erc e , 2008 W L 4445 064, at *13. P i erce att ai n ed a f u l l

- scal e IQ of

80 on D r. D en kow ski ’ s adm i n i st rat i on of th e S B -5 b e fo r e m a k in g a n y a dju s tm e n ts fo r d e p r e s s io n o r a n x ie ty
. I d. A s to P ie rc e ’ s a d a p tiv e d e ficits, th e d istr ict co u rt h e ld th a t ev e n if D r. D e n k o w sk i’s evi den ce w ere not consi dered, “ t h e evi den ce sup ports a f i n di n g t h at Pi erce does
n ot h a ve si gn i fi ca n t de fi cits in a d a p tive be h a vior. ” I d. a t * 1 5
. P i e r c e ’ s C OA ap pl i cat i on an d su pp l em en t albri ef i n g do n o t act u al l y cha l l en ge t h e di st ri ct court’ s concl u si on s as t o t h ese i ssues. T h ese i ssues, t h eref ore, do n otprovi de a basi s f or A t ki n s re li e f. Se e O r t i zv. Q uar t e r m an , 504 F
. 3d 492 , 501 n. 6 ( 5th C i r. 10 2 0 0 7 ); H ugh es v. Joh n son , 1 9 1 F .3d 6 0 7 , 6 1 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). A s t o t h e t h i rd an d fo u rt h i ssues on w h i ch w e gran t ed a C O A

— t h at D r. D en kow skii m properl y cri t i ci zed the rel i abil i t y of P i erce’ s s h o rt f

orm I Q t est
s c o r e s a n d fa i l e d t o e x p l a i n h o w t h e “ F l y n n E f fe c t ” a n d s t r u c t u r a lt e s t f l a ws w ou l d have i nf

l at ed t he r es ul t s of

t es t s t hat ot hers pec i al i st s adm i ni st er ed t o P i erce— P i erce concedes that he nev er r ai sed t h ese i ssues bef ore t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t
. Pi e r c e c o nt e nds t hathe di d no t do s o b ecau se hi s s t r at e gyb e f o r e t he d is trict cou rt w a s to arg u e “tha t D en k ow sk i ’ s cred i b i l i ty h a d be en glob a lly und er m i ned by P la taa nd t hata n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng w as r e qui r e d t o de t e r m i ne Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 27 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Pierceseems to su ggest thate r r or s inanexpert witness’s work inanothe r ca se, 11 wi thout asho wingth at thoseerrors o ccurr ed in or may have affected the outc ome of th e 28 p r e c is e ly h o w D e n k o w s k i a p p lie d s im ila r ly fla w e d m e th o d o lo g ie s in th is ca s e .” P i er c e a r gue s t hatt he “ gi s t ” o f hi s a r gum e nti n t he di s t r i c t c o ur t w as t hatD r. D en kow ski ’ s enti re o p i n i on w as i n fect ed w i t h err ors, an d that he rai sed t h ese di scr et e i ssues on app eal si m pl y t o h i gh l i gh t exam pl es: “ T h ese argum en t s w ere i n ten d ed to h i gh l i gh t si gn i fi ca n t f l a w s i n D en k ow sk i ’ s m eth od ologies .
. . a n d to show t h at i ti s s i m ply n o t possibl e t o carve out t h e f l aw ed p ort i on s of D e n k o w s k i’ s re p o r t a n d th e n m a k e a d e te r m in a tio n th a t w h a t r e m a in s is scien ti fi ca l l y so u n d an d su p p orts th e sta te cou rt’ s d ecisi on . ” P i erce’ s argum en tis not persuasi ve an d d oes not provi de a ba si s f or gr ant i ng hab e as r e l i e f o ra n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng. Fi r s t , Pi e r c e a dm i t s t hathe d id n o t r a is e th e s e co n te n tio n s in t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t. “ ‘ [W ]e h a v e re p e a te d ly h e ld t h at a c on t en t i on not r ai sed by a h abea s peti t i on er i n t h e di st ri ctcourtcann ot be c ons i der ed f

ort he f i r stti m e on a ppealf r om t hat c our t ’ s deni alof habeas reli ef. ’ ” G o o dr um v . Q uar t e r m an , 5 47 F
. 3d 2 49 , 2 59 n. 49 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) ( quo t i ng Jo h n so n v . P u ck ett , 93 0 F
. 2 d 44 5 , 44 8 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 1 ))

. S eco n d , con trary to P i erce’ s asser t i on s ab ou th i s “gl obal” str ategy in t h e di st ri ctcourt , P i erce d idin fact a rgue i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t t hatD r . D e nko w s ki ’ s a f f i da vi t c o nt ai ne d a
n u m ber of

speci f i c er rors — bu tt h ose al l eged err ors w ere di f ferent t h an t h ose t h at he now urges on a pp ea l. T h ird , non e of P i erce’ s o wn e xp e r t s r ai s e d t he F l yn n E ff

ect or stru ctu ra ltes t fl a w s a s rea son s for co n cl u d i n g th a t P i erce ’ s IQ
w as l o w e r t han hi s s c o r e s o n I Q t e s t s no t ad m i ni s t e r e d b y D r . D e nko w s kim i ght i ndi c at e . Fi nal l y, ne i t he rt he a c c ur ac y o f s ho r t
- f o r m t e s t s c o r e s , no r t he Fl ynn Ef fe c t , no ra l l e ge d s t r uc t ur al t e s t f l aws w e r e ati s s ue i n P la ta . I n s h o r t , P ie r c e ’s
ar gum e nt t hat D r . D e nko w s ki ’ s w o r k i n Pl at a provi des “ n ew ev i den ce” t h at D r. D en kow skiperf

orm ed d ef

i ci en t l y h as n o m eri t an d d oes not provi de a ba si s f or h a b ea s relief or a n ev i d en ti a ry h ea ri n g. B eca u se P i erce ’ s con ten ti on s as to 11 Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 28 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

petitione r’s ca se, can provide a proper basi s for hab eas reli ef or an evidentiary hearin g. Pierce cites no authority for this proposition , an d we h ave locat ed none . I n ev alu atin g Pi erce’ s application for h abe as relief, th e di strict court’s ta sk was to determine w he t her the state hab eas court’s det ermin atio n of th e facts was reaso nab le and wheth er the “new evi dence” of Dr. Denkowski’s pe rformance in Pla tacalle d th at determin atio n intoqu estion . The district court co ncluded that th e e rrors in Pla tath at Pi erce cont ende d Dr. Denkowski al so madeinhis own c ase eith er did not o ccur or would not h ave affected the result. 29 “n e w e v id e n c e ” la c k m e r it, w e a ls o d e n y P ie r c e ’ s r e q u e s t, r a is e d fo r t h e f ir s t t im e on a pp eal , to stay t h e case an d h ol d i t i n abeya n ce w h i l e t h e st ate hab eas court
c o ns i de r s t he “ ne w e vi de nc e ” a s t o D r . D e nko w s ki ’ s pe r f o r m anc e i n P la ta
. A s to the f

i ft h i ssu e o n w h i ch w e g ra n ted a C O A

— w h eth er th e sta te habeas c our t ’ s f

i ndi ng t hat D r . G ar net t w as notqu a l i fi ed t o di agnos e m ent al ret arda t i on , w h i ch the T C C Arej ect ed, i m properl y af fect ed other f

i n di n gs of

fact abou tD r. G arn et tt h at t h e T C C A ad opted— P i erce aga i n adm i t s t h at he di d n ot rai se t h i s i ssue bef

ore t h e di st ri ctcourt
. I t t h eref ore does not provi de a ba si s f or r e lie f. Se e G o o dr um , 5 4 7 F .3 d a t 2 5 9 n .4 9 ; P u ck ett , 9 30 F. 2d a t 4 48
. I n a ny e v e n t , t h e T CCA’ s o r d e rr e v e a l s n o e v i d e n c e o f any s uc h t a i n t
. T h e T CCA ad o pt e d t he f

o l l o w i ng fac t ualf

i ndi ngs : Dr. G ar ne t t di d notex am i ne P i e r c e b ut
m e r e l y r e vi e w e d hi s r e c o r ds ; D r . G ar ne t t i s no t l i c e ns e d as a ps yc ho l o gi s t i n t he st ate of T exas bu ti n st ead i s a l i censed m arri age an d fam i l y coun sel or; i n ot h er cases, D r. G arn et tha s been f ou n d to be bi ased or i n exp eri en ced; an d ba se d on
o t h e re v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d a s to P ie r c e ’s m e n t a l fa c u lt ie s , D r . G a r n e t t ’s di agnos i s of

m ent alr et ar dat i on w as “ unp er suas i ve. ” N one of t hes e f i ndi ngs rel i es on t h e t ri alcourt ’ s er roneou s fin di n g, rej ect ed by t h e T C C A , t h at D r. G arn et tw as u n qu al i f i ed t o d i agn ose an indivi du ala s m en t al l y ret arded
. Th ere i s no bas i s i n t he r ec or d t o c onc l ude t hat t he TC C A ’ s f i ndi ngs w er e i n any w ay de pe nde nto n t he f

i ndi ng o f

fac t t hatt he TCC A r ej e c t e d. N o n e o f th e is s u e s r a i s e d in P ie r c e ’ s h a b e a s a p p lic a tio n p r o v id e s a b a s is f or hab eas rel i ef

or an evi den t i ary h eari n g. A ccor di n gl y, w e af f i rm t h e di st ri ct
co u rt’s d e n ia l of At ki ns re li e f. Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 29 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Piercedid not make an effort to deve lop this argument even when the dissent to o ur 12 deni al of aC OA specificallyinvited him todo so—rath er, in his supple mental b riefing , Pierce stated only that he “would add the conce rns discussed byJu stice Denni s inhis co ncurrin g and di sse ntin go pinio ninthisc a sea s a dditio n al re a so n s whyahe arin gis re quir edinthisc a se .” 30 D . The Di s s e nt ’ s Ar gum e nt f or an Evi de nt i ar y Hear i ng The di s s e ntar gue s t hatP i e r c e i s ent i t l e d t o a n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng i n t he federal di st ri ctcourton h i s At ki ns cl ai m becau se t h e st ate hab eas courtdi d n ot h o ld a liv e e v id e n tia r y h e a r in gto d e te r m in e w h e th e r P ie r c e w a s m e n ta lly
r et ar ded. Th e di ss enturg es t hi s c our t t o c onc l ude t hat , as a m at t erof c l ear l yest abli shed Su prem e C ou rtl aw , a l i ve evi den t i ary h eari n g i s “gua ran t eed to a p ri son er w h o h a s m a d e a plau sibl e sh ow i n g o f m en tal retard a ti on . ” T h e m ostcri t i calob st acl e to the rel i ef t h e di ssent proposes i s t h at Pi erce never , i n ei t herhi s pl eadi ngs or vol um i nous b r i ef i ng, c i t ed t he l ac k of a l i ve evi d en t i ar y hear i ng i n t he s t at e habe as c our t as a ba si s f orob t ai ni ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng i n t he f ede r aldi st r i c t c our t
. Throughouthi s fede r al 12 h a b eas proceedi n gs, P i erce’ s r equ estf or an evi den t i ary h eari n g h as been pre m i se d s ol el y o n t he pro pos i t i ons — w hi c h t hi s ent i r e pane lhas r ej ec t ed— t hat P la tapr o vi de d “ ne w e vi de nc e ” t hatD r . D e nko w s ki ’ s af f i da vi t t e s t i m o ny t o t he st ate hab eas courtw as un re li a b le a n d that t h e T C C Am ay h ave ad opted
erroneou s f

i n di n gs of

factregardi n g D r. G arn et t
. U n der our preceden t s, becau se P ier ce di d n otrai se t h e l ack of an evi den t i ary h eari n g i n t h e st ate c ou rtas a b a s is fo rre lie f in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o r e v e n in h is p le a d in g s a n d b r ie fin gto th is
c o u r t, w e ca n n o t c o n s id e rit h e r e . Se e G o o dr um , 5 4 7 F .3 d a t 2 5 9 n .4 9 ; P u ck ett , 930 F. 2d at448. V . C ONC L US I ON W e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of ha beas rel i ef

based on t h e Penry v io la t io n s a tP ie r c e ’s s e n t e n c in g , a n d a c c o r d in g ly A F F I R M th e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s resente n cin g o rd er. B ecau se w e af f i rm res en t en ci n g on t h i s basi s, w e do n ot Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 30 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

31 addre ss w het herPi er c e’ s i nef fec t i ve as si st ance of c ounse lc l ai m pr ovi des an ad di t i on alb as i s f

o rr e s e nt e nc i ng. W e AFF I RM t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni alof h abea s r el i ef

an d an evi den t i ary h eari n g on P i erce’ s At ki ns c l a i m. AF F I RMED. Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 31 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Dr. Kaufman, a clinicalpsychologist, evaluated Pie rce in 199 0. S he administere d th e 1 Wech sler Adult IntelligenceScale-R evised , t he result of which she consi dered “witho ut que stion valid.” Dr. Kaufman also note d th at Pi erce exhib ited classic traits of th e mentally retarded and pointed to Pierc e’s adaptivebehavioralissues, observing that he did not think thro ugh the conse que nces of his actions, had gro ss defici enci es compreh ending society’s basic v alu e sy st em s an d co nvention s an d exhib it edextr em elypoo r so ci al j u dgme nt i nevery daylif e situation s. Again st this background and his earlier IQ scores of 7 4 in 197 2 and 197 4 and 67 in1 9 7 5 , Dr. Kaufmanconclu de d th at Pierc e wa s me ntallyret ard edatth e ti meo f th e crim e in 197 7. Dr. Garne tt submitte d anaffi davit in support of Pierce ’ s s uc c es sivestat e h abe as petition in 20 02. Dr. Garne tt also opin ed th at Pi erce was mentally retarded. He noted that Pi erce scored below 75onseven IQ tests over a perio d of seve ral ye ars, and that atest score of 8 1 o n the Wech sler Adult IntelligenceScale in 197 6 was anoutlie r and mayh ave h ad to do with hints from the administrator or the test-retest facto r. Furthe r, Dr. Garne tt also note d that Pierceh ad si gnificant adaptive deficit s. He po inte d out th at it was commonfor a me ntally retarded personto res p on dw el l to structured settin gs, such as apri son, as i s theca se with Pi erce, only to r evert back to unacceptable or ill egal beh avior as soon as he is o utsideof that environ ment. Dr. Ro sin , a clinic al psychologist, evaluated Pierceinsuppo rt of hi s stateh abe as application in 200 2. She note d th at Pi erce’ s scho olr ec ords showed acon sistentpatternof und erachieve ment and observe d th at Pi erce obtaine d full scale IQ scores of 6 9 at a geninean d 74 at age twelve , bo th on the Otis-LennonT est of Mental Ab ility, an d two scores of 67 and 75 on tests a dmini stered in 197 5. Dr. Ro sin administere d the W echsler AdultI ntelligence D E N N IS , C i rcu i t Ju d ge , con cu rring i n pa rt an d dissen ti n g in pa rt: I r e s p e c tfu lly d is s e n t fr o m th e m ajo r it y ’s r e a s o n s a n d co n c lu s io n in rej ect i n g P i erce’ s A t ki n s cl a i m , be ca u se th e p roce d u re th e T ex a s cou rts u sed to d e t e r m i n e wh e t h e r Pi e r c e i s m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t he req u i rem en ts of con sti tu ti on a ld u e p roce ss. In a l lo th er resp ects con sist en t w i th t hi s v i e w , I c o nc uri n t he m aj o r i t y o pi ni o n. I
. P i erce w as f

ou n d n ott o be m en t al l y ret arded b y a st ate hab eas court j udge o n t he bas i s of

an af f i davi t by t he s t at e’ s expe r t , w i t hout a l i ve adver sa r i al
e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng, w i t ho uta n o ppo r t uni t y t o t e s t i f y o r c al lw i t ne s s e s , a nd
w i t h o u ta n o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n f r o n t a n d c r o s s - e x a mi n e t h e wi t n e s s a g a i n s t h i m. I n t he s t at e habeas proc ee di ngs, P i er c e pre se nt ed t he af f i davi t s of

t hre e m ent al
r e t ar da t i o n e xp e r t s , D r . J une K aufm an, D r . Ri cha r d Gar ne t t , a nd Dr
. Sus ana R osi n , w h o ea ch set f ort h h i s or h er f

i n di n gs, eval u ati on an d op i n i on t h at Pi erce i s m ent al l y r et ar ded. The s t at e pre se nt ed t he af f i davi t of i t s expe r t , D r . G eo r ge 1 Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 32 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Scal e-I II , onwhi c h Pi er c e s c ored an IQ of 7 0. Dr. Ro sin furth er noted that Pierceh ad significant deficits inconceptu al, social and practical skills, pointing to his lon g histo ry of probl ems soci ali zingwithoth ers, e xe rcisin g soun d j udgment, resistingp ee rp r es sure, and learningfrom past expe riences. Accordin g to Dr. Rosin, his IQ score and his adaptive deficit s plac ed him in the mildlymentally retarded ran ge . Dr
. De nko wskir evie we d Pierc e’ s f il esan d evalu ate d himo nd eathrow. He 2 administere d th e St anfo rd-Binet IntelligenceScales-Fifth Edition , onwhich he said Pi erce achieved ascoreof 80. Dr. Denkowski opin ed that, adj usted for mo derat e anxietyan d mil d depressio n, his sco re wa s actuallyinth e 8 0 to 8 4 range. Furthe r, Dr. Denkowski opin ed th at, apar t fr omhis lowac a d e m i cs ki lls , Pier ce di d not have s ignif icantdefi cit s in adap tive functioning . Dr. Denkowski’s affi davit othe rwise focused on criticiz ing the opinions of Pierce ’s thre e e xpe rts–shi elde d from anyform of re sponse or cross ex amin atio n. The state hab eas court completely ignore d that the expert witnesses ex amin ed Pierce 3 at wide intervals (in onein stanc e ove r adec ade apart) and und er differingcircumstances, with som e ha vi nganalyz ed Piercean d madefin dings prio r toth e Supreme Court’s de cisio n in Atk ins ; a wide variety of te sts were administere d invo lving v arying

par ameter s an d substantial nuance and complexit y; a nd the mental h ealth experts sh arply disagreed on wh eth erPierc e isment ally retard edan d sub mitt eddia me tric allyo pp os edaff id avit s. Addition ally, the qualifications and inte grity of D r . D e nkowski, whose affidavit was the pivotal and exclu sive basi s for the state trial hab eas court’s finding that Pi erce wa s no tme nt ally retarded, are now un der close scrutiny and his metho ds have bee n recogniz ed to be unr eli abl e b ythisc ourt , th e T ex a s state c ourt s, a n d th e st atelic en sin gauthoritie s. SeeHa ll v . Quarterman , 5 3 4F .3 d 3 6 5 , 37 1 n.2 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8); id. at37 6 (Higginbo tha m, J., concurring inp artan d di sse ntin ginp art); Ex par te Plata , No
. 6 9 3 1 4 3 -B( 3 5 1 stDi st
. C t. S ep t. 2 8 , 2 0 0 7), af f’d , No
. AP -7 5 8 2 0 , 2 0 0 8WL1 5 1 2 9 6(T ex . C ri m. App . J a n . 1 6 , 2 0 0 8); Tex. StateBd. of Exa miners of P

sychologistsv. Denkowski , 5 2 0 -0 9 -2 8 8 2 (Tex

. St ateOf ficeo f Adm in
. Hr g s) ; R en ee F el tz , Crac ked , T ex as Obse rve r, J an . 5 , 2 01 0, a vaila ble at http://www.texasobserver.org /cover-story/cracked( last visite d April1 1 , 2 0 1 0).

33 D en kow ski , w h ich s e tf ort h hi s eval u ati on an d op i n i on t h at Pi erce i s not
m en t al l y ret arded
. D r. D en kow ski ’ s af f i da vi t al so c on t ai n ed h i s r eason s f or di scoun t i n g or di sagreei n g w i t h t h e contr ary o pi ni o n s of P i erce’ s expert s. Pier ce 2 requ est ed a con t radi ct ory evi den t i ary h e a rin g . B u t t h e st ate hab eas court den i ed P i erce’ s m ot i on an d d i d n ot seek an y f u rt h er i n pu t f

rom P i erce’ s expert s. R a th er, th e sta t e c our t f ou n d tha t D r. D en k ow sk ipr ese n ted a “cred i b l e a ff i d a vit” and , o n t he b as i s o f

t hata f f i da vi t , de c i de d t hatPi e r c e i s no t m e nt al l y r e t ar de d. 3 Acc o r di ngl y, t he s t at e hab e as t r i al c o ur t he l d t hat Pi e r c e i s no t e xe m pt f r o m t he Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 33 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

The only state hab eas trial c ourtfin ding not a dopted byt he T CCA was its clearly 4 erron eou s exclu sion of Dr. Garne tt’s affidavit on the basi s that h e was not lice nsed in Tex as and thu s i ne li gible to opin e o n mental r etar datio n in civil commitments un der the Per sons withMe ntal R et ard ationAct , T ex . He alth&S afe tyC od e § 5 9 1 .0 0 3 (1 6). 34 d e a t h p e n a lty
. O n a p p e a l, th e T C C Aa d o p te d th e sta te h a b e a s tr ia l co u r t ’s f i n di n gs an d concl u si on s. 4 T h e federal di st ri ctha beas court ref u se d to gran t P i erce an evi den t i ary h eari n g on hi s A t ki n s cl ai m , f ou n d that t h e st ate c ou rt s’ rej ect i on of hi s At ki ns cl ai m w as n otu n reasona bl e u n der A E D P A , a n d t h eref ore rej ect ed h i s pet i t i on fo rfe d e r a l h a b e a s re lie f. Pi e r c e v . Q uar t e r m an , N o. H

- 07- 1561, 2008 W L 4 445 064 , at **13-15 ( S

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

. I n doi n g so, t h e di st ri ctcourt fai l ed t o e nf

or c e Pi er c e’ s c l ear l y e st abl i she d c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght t o pr oc edur al d u e p r o c e s s . II. Cons t r ui ng and a ppl yi ng t he Ei ght h Am en dm e nti n t he l i ghto f o ur

“ e vo l vi ng s t and ar ds o f de c e nc y, ” t he Supr e m e Cour t i n A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 536 U
. S

. 304 , 321 ( 200 2) , hel d t h at the C on st i t u t i on “‘ pl aces a substanti ve rest ri ct i on on the S tate’ s p ow er to tak e th e li fe’of a m en tall y re tard ed o ff en d er.” I

d. ( quot i ng For d v
. W

ai nw r ight , 47 7 U
. S

. 3 9 9 , 40 5 ( 1 9 8 6 ))

. In S ch rir o v. S m ith , t he C ou rt obs erv ed tha t A t ki n s st ated in cl ear term s that “‘ w e leave to the S t ate[ s] t h e t ask of

devel opi n g ap propri ate w ays to en f orce t h e const i t u t i on alres t ri ct i on u p o n [th e ir ] e x e c u tio n o f s e n te n c e s ,’” 5 4 6 U .S . 6 , 7 ( 2 0 0 5 ) (a lte r a tio n s in o r ig in a l) ( quot i ng At ki ns , 53 6 U
. S

. at 31 7 ), bu t also state d t h a t “ th ose m ea su res m i gh t, i n the i r a p p lic a tion , be su b j ect to con sti tu ti on a lch a l l en ge , ” i d. T h u s, un der A t ki n s a p e r s o n h a s a s u b s ta n tiv e rig h t n o t t o b e e x e c u te d if h e is m e n ta lly
r e t ar de d, a nd o nc e he m ak e s a pr i m a fac i e sho w i ng t hathe i s m e nt al l y r e t ar de d, Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 34 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

See Panet ti v. Quarterman , 551 U.S. 930, 934 -35 (20 07) (“Under Ford , once apri soner 5 makes th e re qui site preli minary showin g that his current mental state would barhis ex ecution , the EighthAmendment, applicableto the State s un der the Due Process Cl auseof th e Fourt ee nthAme n dm ent, e ntitl eshimt o a na dj u dicationt o de te rm in e hisc on dition .”). 35 he i s ent i t l e d t o an adj udi c at i o n m e e t i ng c o ns t i t ut i o nals t and ar ds t o de t e r m i ne hi s c o ndi t i o n. 5

“ The Four t e e nt h Am e ndm e nt ’ s D ue Pr o c e s s Cl aus e prot e c t s pe r s o ns a ga i n st de p ri va ti on s of l i fe, l i b erty , or p rop erty ; a n d th ose w h o se ek to i n vo k e it s p r o c e d u r a l p r o te c tio n m u s t e s ta b lis h th a t o n e o f th e s e in te r e s t s i s a t s ta k e .” Wilkin so n v. A u stin , 545 U
. S

. 209 , 221 ( 200 5)

. “Al i bert y i n t erestm ay ari se f rom t h e C on st i t u t i on it sel f, b y reason of g u aran t ees i m pl i ci tin the w ord ‘ l i bert y, ’or it m a y a r is e fr o m a n e x p e c ta tio n o r in te r e s t c r e a te d b y s ta te la w s o r p o lic ie s .” I d. ( c i t i ng V

itek v. Jon es , 4 4 5 U .S . 4 8 0 , 4 9 3 -4 9 4 (1 9 8 0 ) (lib e r ty in te r e s t in
av o i di ng i nvo l unt ar y ps yc hi at r i c t r e at m e nt and t r ans fe r t o m e nt ali ns t i t ut i o n) & W o lff v. McD o n n ell , 4 18 U
. S. 5 39 , 55 6- 55 8 ( 19 74 ) (l i be r t y i nt e r e s t i n a vo i di ng w ith d ra w a l of sta te -cr e a te d sy ste m of g o o d -tim e cr e d its)). I n V i t ek , t h e C ou rthel d that, “ [b] ecau se pri soners faci n g i n vo lu n t ary t ran sfer t o a m en t alhosp i t alare t h reat en ed w i t h i m m edi a te d epri vati on of l i be r t y i nt e r e s t s a nd b e c aus e o f t he i nhe r e ntr i s k o f a m i s t ak e n t r ans fe r , ” due p ro cess requi res procedu res si m i l ar t o t h ose r equ i red i n parol e revocat i on p r o c e e d in g s . I

d. at495- 96 ( c i t i ng Mo r r i s s ey v . B rew er , 4 0 8 U .S

. 4 7 1 (19 7 2 )). A ccor di n g t o V

i t ek , t h e m i n i m u m procedu res bef ore t ran sferri n g a pri soner t o a m en tal ho sp i tal i n cl u d e th e fol l ow i n g: ( 1 ) “W ri tten n oti ce to th e p ri son er th a t a tr a n s fe rto a m e n ta l h o s p ita l is b e in gco n s i d e r e d ”; (2 ) “A h e a r in g , su ffic ie n tly af t e rt he no t i c e t o pe r m i tt he pr i s o ne r t o pr epa re, a t w hi c h di s c l o s ur e t o t he pri soner i s m ad e of

t h e evi den ce bei n g rel i ed u pon f or t h e t ran sfer and at w h i ch
a n o p p o r tu n ity to b e h e a r d i n p e r s o n a n d to p r e s e n t d o c u m e n ta r y e v id e n c e is gi ven” ; ( 3) “An oppor t uni t y at the hear i ng t o pr es entt es t i m ony o f w i t nes se s by t he defens e and t o co nf r ontan d cr os s- exam i ne w i t nes se s c al l ed byt he s t at e” ; ( 4) Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 35 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

Un der the Math ews bal ancing test, we weigh “[f]irst, the priv ate interest thatwillbe 6 aff ecte d b yth e of

fici al a ctio n ; se co n d, th e ri sk of ane rroneou s d ep riv ationo f su chinte re st thro ugh the procedures u sed, and t he probab le value , if any , of additional o r substitute procedural safeguar ds; an d fin ally, the Government’s inter est, includin g the functioninvo lved and the fiscalan d ad mini strativeburdens that th e ad d it io na l o r substitute procedural requirement would e ntail.” Id
. at33 5. 36 “A n i ndependentdec i si onm aker ” ; ( 5) “A w r i t t en s t at em entby t he fac t f i nderas to the ev i d en ce re l i ed on an d the rea son s f or tra n sferri n g th e inm a te ”; (6) “[ In
s o m e i ns t anc e s ] [ a] va i l ab i l i t y o f l e ga lc o u ns e l , f

ur ni s he d b y t he s t at e , i f t he in m a te i s f

i n a n ci a l l y u n a b l e to furn i sh h i s ow n ”; an d ( 7 ) “E ff ective a n d ti m ely
n oti ce of allthe f

ore go i n g righ ts. ” I

d. a t 4 9 4 -9 5 ; see als o Morri ssey , 408 U
. S. at 489 (l i st i n g el em en t s of du e process f

or parol e revocat i on s)

. If t h ese el em en t s of du e process are c on st i t u t i on al l y requ i red b e for e a st ate m ay revok e a f orm er pri soner’ s parol e (Morri ssey ) or i n vol u n t ari l y h ospi t al i ze an d tr eat a pri soner f or
m en t ali l l n ess ( V

i t ek ) , c e r t ai nl y t he y ar e gua r ant e e d t o a pr i s o ne r w ho ha s m ad e a p la u s ib le s h o w in go f m e n ta l re ta r d a tio n b e fo r e h e m a y b e d e c la r e d m e n ta lly f i ta nd e l i gibl e f

o re xe c ut i o n. Th e Court ’ s dec i si ons , es pec i al l y V i t ek, Morri ssey , a nd W o lff , cle a r ly in d ic a te th a t P ie r c e , w h o m a d e a p r im a fa c ie s h o w in gth a t h e is m e n ta lly ret arded , i s en t i t l ed t o h ave hi s cond i t i on adj u di cat ed i n a co n t radi ct ory evi den t i ary h eari n g i n w h i ch h e ha s an op portun i t y to p re se n t t est i m on y of
w i t ne s s e s a nd t o c o nf r o nt and c r o s s - e xa m i ne w i t ne s s e s c al l e d b y t he s t at e . The st ate c ou rt s pl ai n l y fai l ed to provi de P i erce w i t h t he s e c o ns t i t u t i on alprocedu res requ i red by d u e process . B ecau se Pier ce’ s l i bert y in te re st ati ssue h ere ari ses di rect l y f

rom t h e C on st i t u t i on i t sel f, an d n otf rom an expectat i on or i n t erest
c r e at e d b y s t at e l aws o rpo l i c i e s , hi s c as e i nvo ke s t he f ul ldue pr o c e s s pr o t e c t i o ns es t abl i she d by V

i t ek a nd Morri ssey an d d oes not cal lf or th e add i t i on alst ep of ap pl yi ng t he f

r am e w o r k e s t ab l i s he d i n Ma t he ws v . El dr i dge , 4 2 4 U
. S. 319 (1 9 7 6 ). M o re o v e r, a p p li ca tion of Ma t h e ws h e r e s e r v e s o n ly to co n fir m th a t a ll

6
o f t he due pr o c e s s e s s e nt i al s s e t f o r t h i n Morri ssey a r e r e qui r e d i n t hi s c as e . The Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 36 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

I t b ears empha sis, more over, thatPierceis oneof thefew T ex as de athrow inmates 7 who h as not b eenaffo rded such a full due process hearin g in a po st-Atk ins case. Startin g with Ex parte Briseno , 13 5 S .W.3d 1 (T ex . C rim. App. 20 04), in which the Tex as C ourtof Cri minal Appe als impleme nted the Supre me C ou r t ’s pro nounceme nts in Atk ins , th e prison er wa s granted a live h earingonremand in state trial court todeterminewhether he was mentally retarded. As Judge Higginbo tha m ob s erved, “T ex as co urts quicklyfound their foo ting p o s t-A tk ins
. . . . Briseno was also convicted befo re Atk ins but
. . . rec eived afive-day evidentiary hearin g on his post-Atk insh abe as cl aim o f mental retardation.” Hal l , 53 4 F .3d at 389 (H igginbot ham , J., c o n c urring in partand dis se nting in par t) (cit ing Brise no , 13 5 S

. W
. 3 d at 4)

. S u c h live h e ari n g s h ave b e c o m e th en orm i n Atk ins cases in the Tex as state co urt s. See SarahGailTuthill, C om me nt, The Texas -SizeStruggle to Implem ent Atk insv. Virginia , 14Tex . Wesley an L. Rev. 145 , 146-4 7, 166(2007) (describin g the “cou nty -by -county patchwo rkquilt”o f proc edural a pp ro a ch es). 37 pri vate i n t eresttha tw i l lb e af fect ed by t h e of

f i ci alact i on here, P i erce’ s l i fe, i s, of course, m axim al
. T h e ri sk of an err on eou s depri vati on of su ch an i n t erest t hro ugh l es se rpr oc edur es t h a n th os e e st abl i she d by Morri ssey is in to le r a b ly g r e a t, a n d th e v a lu e o f r e q u ir in ga d d itio n a l p r o c e d u r a l s a fe g u a r d s is
e xt r ao r di nar i l y hi gh. Con s e que nt l y, t he go ve r nm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s t i n a vo i di ng t he
c o s to f a ddi t i o nalpr ocess , inc l udi ng t he f unc t i o n i nvo l ve d a nd t he f i s c ala nd adm i ni st r at i ve burde ns t hat t he addi t i onalors ubst i tu t e pr oc edur al requ i rem en t s w ou l d en t ai l , i s r el ati vel y sm al la n d d oes not ou t w ei gh t h e ot h er consi derati on s i n vol ved or j u st i f y a l esserl evelof

process . 7 U n d er A E D P A , a fed era lcou rt m a y g ra n t h a b e a s r e l i ef on l y if the state
c our t ’ s adj udi c at i on o f t he c l ai m on t he m er i t s “ r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hat w as contrary t o, or i n vol v e d an un reasona bl e app l i cat i on of, cl earl y est abli shed F ederal l aw , as deter m i n ated by the S u prem e C ou rtof t h e U n i t ed S t ates, ” or

“ r e s ul t e d i n a de c i s i o n t hatw as b as e d on an unr e as o nab l e de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he fa c t s i n l i g h to f

t h e e v i d e n c e pr e s e n t e d i n t h e St a t e c o u r t pr o c e e d i n g . ” 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 254( d)

. “ W hen a s t at e c our t ’ s adj udi c at i on o f a c l ai m i s dependenton an a n te c e d e n t u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f fe d e r a l la w , th e re q u ir e m e n t s e t fo r th in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ) is s a tis fie d . Afe d e r a l c o u r t m u s t t h e n re s o lv e th e cla im
w i th ou t th e d eferen ce A E D P Aoth erw i se re q u i res.” Pa n etti , 551 U
. S. at953- 54 ( c i t i ng Wiggins v. S m ith , 5 39 U
. S. 5 10 , 5 27

- 29 , 5 34 ( 20 03 ) )

. “ H e r e , due t o t he Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 37 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 08- 70042

38 sta te co u rt’s u n re a so n a b le a p p li c a t io n of [ At ki ns , V

i t ek , Morri ssey , a nd W o lff ,] t h e fact f

i n di n g procedu res u pon w h i ch the c o u rtrel i ed w ere ‘ n otadeq u ate f or r eac hi ng r eas onabl y c or r ec tr es ul t s’or , ata m i ni m um , res ul t ed i n a proc es s t hat
a p p ea red to be “‘ seriou sly i n a d eq u a te f or th e a scer tain m en t of the truth
. ’ ” I

d. at 9 5 4 ( q uo t i ng Ford , 4 77 U
. S. a t 4 23

- 42 4 ( Powel l , J
. , c o nc ur r i ng i n pa r t a nd
c o n c u r r in gin ju d g m e n t))

. III. F or t h ese r eason s, i n m y vi ew , t h e j u d g m e n t of t h e f ederal di st ri ctcourt def er r i ng t o th e s t at e c our t s’r ul i ngs on Pi er c e’ s m ent alc ondi t i on s houl d be
va ca ted an d the ca s e s h o u l d be rem a n d ed i n pa rt t o th e d i stri ct cou rt w i th di rect i on s t o consi der P i erce’ s A t ki n s c l ai m on t he m er i t s i n an adver sa r i al
e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h t he f o r e go i ng due pr o c e s s pr i nc i pl e s a nd
w ith o u t d e fe r r in gto th e s ta te co u r ts ’fin d in g s . Case: 08-70042 Document: 00511084712 Page: 38 Date Filed: 04/19/2010