Ex Parte Cathy Lynn HENDERSON
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1605
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Henderson, the babysitter, was convicted of capital murder in 1995 for Brandon Baugh’s death based on the State’s autopsy evidence and Dr. Bayardo’s trial testimony that the death was homicidal.
- Bayardo originally testified the injuries required a deliberate blow and that an accidental fall could not cause them; he opined the manner of death was homicide.
- Since 1995, biomechanics and pediatric head-trauma science evolved, leading Bayardo to recant in 2007 and recast his opinion to “undetermined” about causation and intent.
- Henderson filed a postconviction writ in 2007 seeking relief based on new scientific developments; Judge Wisser conducted live hearings with multiple experts.
- Judge Wisser recommended vacating the conviction and ordering a new trial based on the unreliability of the original scientific testimony; the State agreed to remand for a new trial.
- The concurring opinion emphasizes that the change in scientific understanding does not prove innocence but undermines the reliability of the verdict and warrants retrial to preserve accuracy and fair process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the new scientific evidence a material exculpatory fact warranting a new trial? | Henderson argues the biomechanics evidence undermines the trial verdict. | State concedes the new science questions Bayardo’s testimony; supports remand for new trial but not outright innocence. | Yes; the new evidence supports a remand for a new trial. |
| Does Bayardo’s recantation violate due process requiring retrial? | New scientific uncertainty undermines the verdict’s reliability. | Due process was not violated at trial; only testimony’s reliability is affected. | Yes; the reliability concerns justify retry to ensure accuracy. |
| Does the change in the manner of death mean actual innocence? | Reevaluation shows the original homicide finding was unfounded. | Not innocence; only unreliability of evidence. | Not innocence; nonetheless, new evidence supports retrial to reassess verdict. |
| Should the case be retried given competing expert views on causation and intent? | New biomechanical testimony creates reasonable doubt about the verdict. | Balance of expert opinions requires careful reconsideration; retrial appropriate. | Yes; retrial warranted to resolve issues with new science. |
| What standard governs relief for shifting scientific evidence in postconviction? | Ex parte Elizondo-like standard applies; clear-and-convincing proof of no reasonable juror would convict. | Standard should address reliability, not outright innocence. | Relief appropriate when new evidence would have likely changed the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Robbins, 360 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (shifted science; reliability of verdict questioned; retrial urged)
- Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (pivotal SBS/medical-evidence framework in Texas case law)
- State v. Edmunds, 746 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008) (new medical opinions create reasonable doubt; remand for new trial)
- Han Tak Lee v. Glunt, 667 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2012) (federal due-process considerations with new fire-science evidence; potential relief)
- Edmunds (Wis. Ct. App.), 746 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008) (recognizes shift in medical opinion as new evidence forming basis for relief)