Opinion ID: 67011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guidry v. Dretke

Text: Thomas also argues that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing is so contradictory that the district court should have granted an evidentiary hearing. He relies on Guidry v. Dretke, 397 F.3d 306, in which this circuit held that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it chose to grant an evidentiary hearing as to questions of fact presented in the state court. In that case, police, lawyers, and the defendant provided conflicting testimony, and the state court ignored the testimony favorable to the defendant. Id. at 315. The State argued that the state court’s silence meant the court had made “implied” findings as to the reliability of the testimony. Id. at 325. “[T]he district court concluded the trial court’s decision ‘was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.’” Id. at 326. In light of this, this court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in conducting an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 324. While the record in this case does have evidence both supporting and opposing the application of the Flynn Effect, it is not analogous to the situation in Guidry. There, testimony of conflicting fact witnesses was completely ignored by the trial court in its findings of fact. Here, the state court considered all of the available evidence before it, and made findings that took into consideration all of the evidence. In particular, the state court considered the testimony of Dr. Price and Dr. Kessner as to the applicability of the Flynn Effect and determined that Dr. Price was more persuasive. The state court concluded that “it is not a generally accepted professional practice to automatically adjust individual IQ 9 No. 08-70036 scores to accommodate the group statistical concept known as the Flynn Effect.” The state court also considered the testimony of Thomas’s expert Dr. Garnett, and the determined that he was biased in favor of Thomas. The state trial judge reached these conclusions after observing the witnesses and considering the evidence. Once again, reasonable jurists would not debate that the state court’s decision was reasonably based on the evidence before it.