916 F.3d 444
5th Cir.2019Background
- In 1998 Thompson shot and killed Darren Cain and wounded Glenda Hayslip; Hayslip later died. Thompson confessed, surrendered, and was indicted for capital murder.
- While jailed, Thompson discussed retrieving the murder weapon and solicited another inmate (recorded by Investigator Gary Johnson) to retrieve the gun and kill a witness; the gun was later recovered and Thompson was charged with solicitation in addition to murder.
- Thompson was convicted of capital murder in 1999; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated only the punishment phase because of a Sixth Amendment Massiah violation and ordered a retrial on punishment. A 2005 retrial again resulted in a death sentence.
- Years later (circa 2013–2014) records revealed longtime informant Robin Rhodes had an earlier 1993 contract with prosecutors/Task Force; Thompson sought federal habeas relief alleging Brady and Massiah issues tied to Rhodes’s testimony at the punishment retrial.
- The federal district court denied habeas relief and an evidentiary hearing; on appeal the Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability (COA) only on: (1) whether nondisclosure of Rhodes’s relationship with the State (Brady) excuses procedural default, and (2) if so, whether Rhodes’s testimony violated Massiah. All other COA requests and the denial of an evidentiary hearing were denied/affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of murder weapon at guilt phase (Massiah) | Thompson: weapon recovery and admission flowed from an unlawful jailhouse interrogation, violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. | State: weapon recovery was independent (map and other sources); any Massiah error was harmless given overwhelming evidence. | Denied COA; AEDPA deference appropriate and jurists would not debate harmlessness. |
| Rhodes testimony at punishment retrial (Brady & Massiah) | Thompson: State withheld material evidence of Rhodes’s informant relationship (including a 1993 contract), which is Brady material excusing procedural default; Rhodes was effectively a government agent, so his testimony violated Massiah. | State: much of Rhodes’s informant history was known or discoverable; contract was old and not dispositive; Rhodes denied acting at State direction re: Thompson. | COA GRANTED on two questions: (1) whether nondisclosure of Rhodes’s relationship was Brady sufficient to overcome procedural default, and (2) if so, whether Rhodes’s testimony violated Massiah. |
| Evidentiary hearing on Rhodes claims | Thompson: late disclosure and destroyed Task Force records made a hearing necessary to develop facts (witnesses unavailable otherwise). | State/district court: sufficient documents were produced; §2254(e)(2) limits hearing when facts could have been developed earlier and relief would not undermine guilt. | Denied; district court’s refusal affirmed under §2254(e)(2) because hearing could not affect guilt determination. |
| Autopsy/reporting (Brady) | Thompson: autopsy misattributed Hayslip’s death to the gunshot; State suppressed evidence undermining examiner’s qualifications. | State: Thompson presents speculation; no proof State suppressed exculpatory evidence or that nondisclosure was material. | Denied COA; jurists would not debate lack of dispositive Brady showing. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (guilt phase) | Thompson: multiple trial counsel errors (voir dire, strikes, objections, lesser-included instructions, failure to object to weapon). | State: strategic decisions reasonable; many claims lack prejudice; some claims procedurally defaulted. | Denied COA on all IAC claims; state courts’ reasonableness not debatable. |
| Texas capital sentencing scheme & denial of continuance | Thompson: mitigation burden/standard and denials of continuance violated due process / Sixth Amendment after Hurst. | State: Texas scheme differentiates aggravation/mitigation and is constitutional; trial court’s denial of continuance was reasonable and not prejudicial. | Denied COA; precedent forecloses the Hurst-based claim and continuance denial lacked reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) (Sixth Amendment rule forbidding use of incriminating statements deliberately elicited post-indictment in absence of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference to state-court adjudications of federal claims)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (jury, not judge, must make critical findings that increase a defendant’s punishment)