Francis Reed, Jr. v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
703 F. App'x 264
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Reed was convicted in Louisiana of two counts of aggravated rape of his two minor stepdaughters (KP‑1 born 1991; KP‑2 born 1993) and sentenced to life imprisonment; semen matching Reed was found on bedroom carpets.
- Victims gave varying accounts: initial disclosures in May 2005 (including a letter from KP‑2), later recantations, and taped Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) interviews in April 2006 that largely corroborated abuse; physical exams years later showed no injuries (expert testified none expected).
- At trial both victims testified consistently with the CAC interviews; defense counsel stipulated that the trial testimony was consistent with the CAC tapes and did not play the tapes or impeach with the CAC statements, though counsel elicited prior denials/recantations from other witnesses.
- Reed raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in state post-conviction and federal habeas petitions, focusing primarily on counsel’s failure to impeach victims with a CAC inconsistency about a May 2005 interruption by a friend (Stephi).
- Lower courts (state post-conviction, magistrate judge, district court) found counsel’s decision strategic because the CAC tapes were arguably double‑edged and could have been more damaging than helpful; district court denied relief but granted a COA limited to the failure-to-impeach issue.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit applied Strickland and AEDPA deference and affirmed: counsel’s choice was a reasonable tactical decision and Reed failed to show prejudice from the alleged omission.
Issues
| Issue | Reed's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to impeach victims with prior inconsistent CAC statements | Counsel should have used CAC inconsistencies (notably the May 2005 incident) to undermine victims' credibility and possibly change the verdict | Stipulating to consistency and avoiding playing CAC tapes was a reasonable tactical choice because the tapes were double‑edged and could have reinforced the victims' testimony | Affirmed: counsel’s decision was a reasonable tactical choice and Reed failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA §2254(d) standards distinguishing contrary and unreasonable applications of Supreme Court precedent)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (doubly deferential review of ineffective-assistance claims under §2254)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (deference to state court findings on counsel performance)
- Ladd v. Cockrell, 311 F.3d 349 (standards for reviewing district court factual findings in habeas cases)
- Pape v. Thaler, 645 F.3d 281 (permitting tactical nonuse of double‑edged impeachment evidence)
- Rector v. Johnson, 120 F.3d 551 (tactical withholding of double‑edged mitigating evidence can be reasonable)
- Dowthitt v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 733 (double‑edged evidence cannot establish Strickland prejudice)
- Beltran v. Cockrell, 294 F.3d 730 (impeachment failure can be deficient when evidence has significant exculpatory value)