927 F.3d 313
5th Cir.2019Background
- Demetrius D. Smith was convicted in Texas (2006) of capital murder for two killings and sentenced to death; Texas courts and the U.S. Supreme Court denied direct relief.
- Smith’s state habeas was denied after an evidentiary hearing; he filed a federal habeas petition asserting five claims including improper removal of venireman Matthew Stringer, Confrontation Clause, ineffective assistance at sentencing (failure to investigate mental-health mitigation), and that executing the severely mentally ill is Eighth Amendment–forbidden.
- The federal district court conditionally granted habeas relief based solely on the Witherspoon–Witt claim that Stringer was wrongly excused for cause, and denied the other claims; the State appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit rejected the State COA jurisdiction challenge (following Jennings) and reviewed the Stringer exclusion under AEDPA deference (§ 2254(d)(1)–(2)), applying Witherspoon, Witt, and progeny.
- The panel held the TCCA reasonably applied controlling Supreme Court law in finding Stringer substantially impaired (demeanor + questionnaire + voir dire statements), reversed the district court’s conditional grant as to juror exclusion, and affirmed denial of Smith’s ineffective-assistance and Eighth Amendment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State court unreasonably applied Witherspoon/Witt in excusing venireman Matthew Stringer | Stringer never was asked if he could set aside objections and follow the law; questionnaire and some answers suggested he could; exclusion violated impartial-jury rights | Trial court reasonably found from answers and demeanor that Stringer was morally/conscientiously opposed and substantially impaired | Held for State: TCCA’s decision was a reasonable application of Witherspoon–Witt; AEDPA deference required; reversal of district court’s grant |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability (COA) was required for the State’s appeal | Smith: §2253 makes COA jurisdictional for habeas appeals, so State must get COA | State: Rule 22(b)(3) allows state to appeal without COA; Jennings supports that COA is not required for State appeals | Held for State: COA not required for State’s appeal; Jennings controls |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct a more expansive mitigation/mental‑health investigation | Smith: Counsel did not follow ABA guidelines and missed family-history evidence supporting schizophrenia; counsel’s investigation was unreasonable and prejudicial | State: Counsel retained experts and mitigation team; records and interviews undertaken; new evidence is weak and would have risked damaging testimony (malingering); no Strickland prejudice | Held for State: TCCA’s Strickland determination was reasonable; no prejudice shown under AEDPA |
| Whether evolving standards bar execution of the severely mentally ill | Smith: Severely mentally ill lack culpability akin to juveniles/ID and thus execution is unconstitutional | State: No Supreme Court holding that severely mentally ill are categorically exempt; state factual finding was that Smith is not severely mentally ill | Held for State: No controlling Supreme Court rule; Smith did not overcome state factual findings; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) (prohibiting exclusion of jurors for general objections to death penalty)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (clarifying Witherspoon and endorsing deference to trial judge’s demeanor-based bias findings)
- Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007) (applying AEDPA deference to juror-exclusion rulings and emphasizing trial-court demeanor assessments)
- White v. Wheeler, 136 S. Ct. 456 (2015) (per curiam) (requiring deferential §2254(d)(1) review of juror-exclusion claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)