Christopher Young v. Lorie Davis, Director, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10892

Christopher Young kidnapped, sexually assaulted a woman, stole her car, then entered a mini-mart and fatally shot owner Hasmukh Patel; surveillance and witness evidence led to his arrest and conviction for capital murder.
At punishment, Texas statutory special issues were submitted to the jury; the court omitted the statutorily mandated instruction that jurors “need not agree on what particular evidence supports an affirmative finding” for the mitigation issue.
The jury unanimously answered the mitigation special issue “No” (i.e., no sufficient mitigating circumstance warranting life), and Young was sentenced to death.
Young exhausted state remedies, pursued federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and obtained COA on (1) a Mills claim (jury may have thought unanimity on particular mitigating evidence was required) and (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed under AEDPA deference and concluded the Texas courts’ rejection of both claims was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of statutory instruction that jurors need not agree on particular mitigating evidence violated Mills v. Maryland	Young: omission created substantial probability jurors believed unanimity on which evidence was mitigating was required, preventing individual juror consideration	State: instructions, voir dire, counsel argument, and unanimous “No” answer show no reasonable likelihood of such confusion	Court: No Mills error as applied; state courts reasonably concluded instructions did not create substantial probability of juror misunderstanding
Whether juror affidavits (post-trial) showing juror belief of unanimity should be considered	Young: affidavits show jurors misunderstood unanimity requirement, corroborating Mills error	State: juror statements about deliberations are barred by no-impeachment rule and affidavits were not presented to state courts	Court: Did not consider affidavits under Pinholster and refused to extend Pena-Rodriguez beyond racial-bias context; affidavits not considered on AEDPA review
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to omitted instruction (Strickland)	Young: counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudiced him because correct instruction could have led to life sentence	State: even assuming deficiency, Young cannot show prejudice—no reasonable probability outcome would differ	Court: State courts reasonably applied Strickland; no prejudice shown

Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (substantial probability jury thought unanimity on particular mitigating factors required)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (sentencer must consider all relevant mitigating evidence)
Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (upholding jury forms/instructions under Mills where no reasonable likelihood jury thought unanimity on individual mitigating factors required)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal habeas review under §2254(d) limited to record before state court)
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (narrow exception to jury no-impeachment rule for juror statements showing racial bias)