Billie Coble v. Lorie Davis, Director
682 F. App'x 261
5th Cir.2017Background
- Billie Wayne Coble was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering his third wife’s parents and brother; evidence included kidnapping, prior violence, and admissions.
- Fifth Circuit previously granted habeas relief as to punishment, finding the jury may have been precluded from fully considering mitigating mental-health evidence; the case was remanded for a punishment retrial.
- Retrial (punishment phase, 2008) introduced extensive lay and expert testimony on Coble’s violent history, childhood, Vietnam service, prison record, and competing psychiatric assessments about future dangerousness.
- Defense at retrial declined to present live psychiatric testimony, instead emphasizing Coble’s 19 years of good prison behavior and statistical expert testimony minimizing future risk.
- Coble filed state and federal habeas petitions raising 21 claims; the district court denied relief and a COA. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit granted a COA for two claims (5 and 6) and denied COAs for the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Coble’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue / pretrial publicity (Claims 1–2) | Publicity pervaded McLennan County; juror bias presumed or actual; counsel ineffective for not moving to change venue | Publicity was not extreme; jurors who’d ‘‘made up their minds’’ were not seated; counsel made a strategic decision and properly voir dired | COA denied — district court reasonably found no presumptive prejudice and counsel’s decision was strategic and reasonable |
| Prosecutorial conflict / failure to recuse (Claims 3–4) | J.R. Vicha, a childhood witness, was employed by DA’s office; his employment created an imputed conflict that biased the decision to seek death; counsel ineffective for not moving to recuse | No constitutional violation shown; state-law conflict arguments not cognizable on federal habeas; counsel investigated and reasonably declined to seek recusal | COA denied — claims based on Texas ethics do not supply federal habeas relief; counsel’s tactical choice reasonable and speculative prejudice insufficient |
| State expert Dr. Coons — "junk" science (Claim 5) | Dr. Coons’s methodology for predicting future dangerousness was unreliable and constituted junk science that violated due process | State relied on Coons; Court previously allowed consideration of future dangerousness; opposing experts challenged Coons’s methods | COA granted — court found the claim debatable such that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court’s rejection |
| A. P. Merillat testimony (Claim 6) | Testimony was irrelevant, inflammatory, false, or perjured and violated due process | State contends testimony was proper impeachment/contextual evidence and not constitutionally prejudicial | COA granted — claim sufficiently debatable to merit further consideration |
| Failure to present psychiatric expert at retrial (Claim 7) | Counsel ignored Fifth Circuit’s remand roadmap by not presenting psychiatric experts to link mental illness/childhood trauma to culpability; decision prejudiced mitigation | Counsel consulted experts who warned live evaluation could prompt damaging State exam (Dr. Coons); strategy to avoid strengthening State’s expert and to focus on prison record was reasonable | COA denied — district court reasonably deferred to state habeas findings that the choice was strategic and not objectively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (fair-trial standard does not require juror ignorance of case)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (presumed prejudice in extreme publicity cases)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA threshold is limited, overview review)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standards for COA when claims resolved on merits vs. procedure)
- Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (presumptive prejudice from televised confession)
- Coble v. Quarterman, 496 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. prior grant of habeas relief on punishment)
- Busby v. Dretke, 359 F.3d 708 (pretrial publicity requires juror bias attributable to publicity)
- Moore v. Johnson, 225 F.3d 495 (habeas publicity/biased-juror standards)
- Ramirez v. Dretke, 398 F.3d 691 (COA doubts resolved favorably in death-penalty cases)
- Willie v. Maggio, 737 F.2d 1372 (presumptive prejudice framework)