Opinion ID: 71998
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Youth and Good Behavior in Prison

Text: As the district court recognized, under clearly established federal law, the future dangerousness special issue provided a meaningful basis for the jury to consider and give effect to Pierce's youthhe had just turned 18 at the time of the killingand his good behavior in prison. In Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. at 369, 113 S.Ct. 2658, the Court held that the future dangerousness special issue gave the jury a meaningful basis to consider the relevant mitigating qualities of petitioner's youth, reasoning that the signature qualities of youth are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside.. . . [T]here is ample room in the assessment of future dangerousness for a juror to take account of the difficulties of youth as a mitigating force in the sentencing determination. Id. at 368, 113 S.Ct. 2658. The Abdul-Kabir majority reiterated that youth has special relevance to the question of future dangerousness because it is a universally applicable mitigating circumstance that every juror has experienced and which necessarily is transient. 550 U.S. at 261, 127 S.Ct. 1654. The Franklin plurality and concurrence (a total of five Justices) agreed that the future dangerousness special issue also allows the jury to give meaningful consideration and effect to a petitioner's good behavior in prison. 487 U.S. at 177-78, 185-86, 108 S.Ct. 2320. The Court has not overruled this precedent. See Garcia v. Quarterman, 257 Fed.Appx. 717, 722 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (applying Franklin to reject the petitioner's Penry claim premised on mitigating evidence of good behavior in prison). The special issues provided a basis for the jury to give meaningful consideration and effect to the mitigating evidence of Pierce's youth and good behavior in prison.