959 F.3d 168
5th Cir.2020Background
- Jamaal Howard was convicted of capital murder by a jury and sentenced to death; a separate jury had earlier found him competent to stand trial.
- At trial counsel presented lay witnesses, school and medical records, a trial investigator, and expert testimony (Dr. James Duncan and psychiatrist Dr. Fred Fason) about Howard’s mental-health problems; counsel argued mental illness as mitigation in closing.
- Howard claimed in state habeas and federal habeas that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating mental-health evidence (including an alleged 1997 head injury), to timely pursue competency evaluations, and to challenge the knowingness of his Miranda waiver/confession.
- Texas state habeas relief was denied by the TCCA; the federal district court denied habeas relief under AEDPA, concluding the state courts reasonably applied federal law.
- Howard sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial; the Fifth Circuit denied the COA and affirmed denial of an evidentiary hearing, concluding no substantial showing of a constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) IAC — failure to investigate/present mitigating mental-health and life-history evidence | Howard: counsel did minimal work, should have hired experts, uncovered head-injury evidence, presented more witnesses, and would likely have obtained life sentence | State/District: counsel obtained records, used investigator, presented multiple lay witnesses and experts who testified to impairment; strategic choices reasonable | Denied COA — not debatable that counsel satisfied Strickland under AEDPA; state courts reasonably applied federal law |
| 2) IAC — failure to timely pursue/try competency proceedings | Howard: counsel delayed competency evaluation and relied on experts too late | State/District: counsel sought and obtained competency evaluations and two court-appointed evaluations; jury twice found Howard competent | Denied COA — reasonable jurists would not debate that counsel adequately pursued competency issues |
| 3) IAC — failure to challenge Miranda waiver/confession based on mental incapacity | Howard: better investigation of mental health would have supported a Miranda-waiver challenge, removing aggravating use of confession | State/District: record shows Howard understood rights; petitioner offers no viable theory why further investigation would have changed waiver admissibility | Denied COA — no debatable basis to find counsel ineffective for not prevailing on waiver challenge |
| 4) Evidentiary hearing / COA standards | Howard: an evidentiary hearing was needed to develop omitted mitigation evidence | State/District: under AEDPA and Strickland, the existing record and state-court findings were sufficient; no abuse of discretion in denying hearing | COA denied and denial of evidentiary hearing affirmed; claims fail on the merits so hearing unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference; petitioner must show state court unreasonably applied federal law)
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (COA-stage inquiry; limit review to whether district court’s decision is debatable)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (failure to investigate mitigation can support IAC)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for COA and review of AEDPA application)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (guilt-phase evidence can also serve as mitigation at sentencing)
- Lockett v. Anderson, 230 F.3d 695 (failure to investigate mitigation supports IAC where record shows no investigation)