Opinion ID: 856641
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eligibility for the Death Penalty

Text: In order to contest her eligibility for the death penalty, Byrom must show, based on the evidence proffered and all record evidence, that there is a fair probability that a rational trier of fact would have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the facts which made her eligible for the death penalty. Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 346–47 (1992). Here, Byrom claims that the evidence produced at trial—taken together with Dr. Lott’s report—would create a fair probability that no rational juror would have found her guilty of participating in a murder-for-hire scheme, the capital crime for which she was convicted. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)(d). Byrom has not, however, made the requisite showing. While Dr. Lott’s report would have supported Byrom’s theory of the case, in light of the other evidence produced at trial—including Byrom’s own confessions—it cannot be said that a rational trier of fact would have entertained a reasonable doubt regarding the existence of a murder-for-hire scheme. According to Byrom, the parties planned to murder Edward. Junior implicated Byrom, Gillis, and himself; and Byrom separately implicated herself on more than one occasion. Even with Dr. Lott’s report, it cannot be said that a rational trier of fact would harbor a reasonable doubt as to Byrom’s guilt. Byrom has thus failed to show good cause, and we deny her claim accordingly. Having disposed of Byrom’s motion for an expanded COA and Byrom’s motion for additional discovery, the Court will next address those issues for which the district court granted a COA.