890 F.3d 213
5th Cir.2018Background
- In August 2007 Amy Hebert stabbed her two young children to death, wrote notes blaming her ex-husband and his partner, attempted suicide, and was subdued at the scene; she later received psychiatric treatment and reported hearing voices.
- Hebert was charged with first-degree murder, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and a jury convicted her; the jury deadlocked on death and she received life imprisonment.
- Defense presented four mental-health experts who testified Hebert was psychotic and unable to distinguish right from wrong; the State presented two rebuttal experts who conceded mental illness but testified she could tell right from wrong, citing her notes and lack of prior psychosis.
- During jury selection the State used all of its peremptory strikes against women (11 primary + 1 alternate); defense counsel did not object at trial and later raised ineffective-assistance claim on state post-conviction review.
- State courts denied relief; Hebert filed federal habeas under AEDPA raising (1) ineffective assistance for failure to object to alleged gender-based peremptory strikes and (2) insufficiency of the evidence to reject her insanity defense.
- The district court denied habeas relief but granted a certificate of appealability; the Fifth Circuit affirmed on both issues.
Issues
| Issue | Hebert's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to State’s peremptory strikes as gender-discriminatory | Counsel was constitutionally deficient for not objecting to the State’s strikes against qualified women, and prejudice follows because discrimination undermines proceedings | State proffered gender-neutral reasons for each strike; trial counsel’s choice was reasonable strategy and no prima facie Batson/J.E.B. violation shown | Denied—Hebert failed to show discriminatory intent or deficient performance; state court rejection was not unreasonable under AEDPA |
| Sufficiency of evidence to reject insanity defense | Hebert argued unanimity/weight of defense experts made no rational jury could find she failed to prove insanity by preponderance | State argued rebuttal experts and other trial evidence (notes, lack of prior psychosis, inconsistencies) provided objective reasons for jury to reject defense experts | Denied—rational jurors could credit State experts and facts; state-court decision was not an unreasonable application of federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (prohibiting gender-based peremptory strikes)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibiting race-based peremptory strikes; three-step framework)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (plausibility and comparators in peremptory-strike pretext analysis)
- Perez v. Cain, 529 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.) (unanimous expert insanity testimony cannot be rejected absent objective reasons)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (doubly deferential Strickland review in habeas/AEDPA context)