Adam Ward v. William Stephens, Director
777 F.3d 250
5th Cir.2015Background
- Adam Kelly Ward, with a lifelong history of severe mental illness (diagnosed bipolar disorder from early childhood), fatally shot a Code Enforcement Officer, Michael Walker, in 2005; a Texas jury convicted him of capital murder and sentenced him to death.
- Defense counsel at trial had appointed representation and received over $136,000 in court funds to hire experts, investigators, and consultants; extensive psychiatric and school records and expert testimony regarding Ward’s mental illness and family history were presented at guilt and penalty phases.
- Ward pursued state habeas relief (denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) and then filed a federal habeas petition raising five claims, including: ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at sentencing for an allegedly inadequate mitigation investigation; improper third-party contact with jurors; and that executing a severely mentally ill person violates the Eighth Amendment.
- The federal district court denied habeas relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA); Ward applied for a COA on three issues and challenges the district court’s denial of funding for further investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 3599.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s denials (COA standard), applying AEDPA deference and Strickland’s IAC framework where the state courts adjudicated claims on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance at sentencing (mitigation investigation) | Ward: counsel failed to reasonably investigate/present mitigation (mental-illness history), relied on inaccurate diagnoses, and more investigation/funding was needed | Texas: extensive mitigation and expert evidence were presented; counsel made reasonable strategic choices and had substantial funding and experts | Denied COA — state-court denial of IAC was not unreasonable under AEDPA and Strickland; jurists could not debate the resolution |
| Denial of funding for expert/investigative assistance | Ward: district court abused discretion in denying reasonably necessary funding to develop IAC claim | Texas: proposed funding would only supplement prior evidence or support a meritless claim given the existing record | No abuse of discretion — denial affirmed; appeal of funding denial does not require COA but is reviewed for abuse of discretion |
| Improper third‑party contact with jurors (Dr. Zelhart) | Ward: a man associated with prosecution ate lunch and talked with jurors, depriving Ward of an impartial jury | Texas: Zelhart was not an agent of the state and averred the contact was minimal and non-substantive; state court found no impropriety | Denied COA — state-court factual finding that jurors were not improperly influenced is supported; no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary |
| Eighth Amendment: execution of the severely mentally ill | Ward: Atkins/Roper reasoning prohibiting execution of certain classes (intellectually disabled, juveniles) should extend to severely mentally ill defendants | Texas: Fifth Circuit precedent rejects extending Atkins/Roper protections to severe mental illness claims | Denied COA — issue foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent; not debatable among jurists |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (substantial showing/COA standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance framework)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court adjudications under AEDPA)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (review limited to state-court record under § 2254(d))
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (bar on executing intellectually disabled)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (bar on executing juveniles)