791 F.3d 567
5th Cir.2015Background
- In 1993 James Lee Henderson (age 20) participated in a home invasion in which Mrs. Martha Lennox was shot; Henderson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1994.
- Post-Atkins (2002), Henderson pursued state habeas relief claiming intellectual disability; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) remanded for an evidentiary Atkins hearing and later denied relief, adopting trial-court findings that Henderson failed to prove intellectual disability.
- At the Atkins hearing Henderson’s expert (Dr. Rosin) administered a WAIS-III in 2004 (FSIQ 66) and Vineland scales showing adaptive deficits; three lay childhood witnesses testified about poor hygiene, special-education placement, gullibility, and academic delays.
- The State presented a 1994 short-form WAIS-R screening (estimated IQ 83) administered at intake, prison records showing literate behavior (books, correctly written commissary requests, football betting sheets), prior convictions, and expert testimony challenging the validity of the low 2004 score and emphasizing evidence of functional abilities.
- The trial court and TCCA found the State’s evidence more credible on adaptive functioning; federal habeas review under AEDPA was sought, with the district court and Fifth Circuit ultimately affirming denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Henderson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state trial court denied due process by failing to provide timely transcript / discovery and by ruling before receiving Henderson's briefing | Trial court deprived him of a fair opportunity to rebut Dr. Gillhausen (short-form IQ testimony) and to show the error in that testimony (Assessment of Children) | Henderson had a full evidentiary hearing, cross-examination, and the TCCA reviewed the record; no deprivation of opportunity | Court held no due-process violation; state proceedings afforded adequate opportunity and AEDPA deference applies |
| Whether AEDPA deference is overcome to find Atkins entitlement | The TCCA unreasonably weighed evidence; clear and convincing proof shows intellectual disability (IQ 66, adaptive deficits, onset before 18) | TCCA’s factual findings are presumptively correct; petitioner must rebut by clear and convincing evidence but failed to do so | Court applied AEDPA and held Henderson did not rebut state-court factual findings; deference retained |
| Whether Henderson proved adaptive-behavior deficits under Briseno/AAMR criteria | Lay testimony and Vineland scores show deficits in multiple adaptive domains (self-direction, work, safety, academics) | Evidence of adaptive skills (reading, writing, arithmetic, planning, lying, prison records) undermines finding of deficits; special-ed placement and poor hygiene reflect neglect/behavior not ID | Court held TCCA reasonably found Henderson failed to prove adaptive deficits by preponderance; habeas relief denied |
| Reliability/weight of short-form WAIS-R (1994 screening) vs. later WAIS-III (2004) | Short-form score validity was misstated; proper application of assessment literature would show the 1994 estimate could be consistent with a low full-scale IQ | Short-form screening and expert testimony supported that higher scores were more representative and that inconsistencies suggested possible secondary gain/malingering | Court deferred to state credibility determinations; any dispute over test interpretation did not render state-court factual findings unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled defendants)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standards for certificate of appealability and habeas review procedures)
- Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290 (2010) (habeas courts must defer to state-court factual findings unless unreasonable)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (rejection of rigid IQ cutoff; requirement of fair opportunity to prove intellectual disability)
- Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas standard using AAMR three-prong test and Briseno evidentiary factors for Atkins claims)
- Ex parte Cathey, 451 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (courts must weigh all adaptive-functioning data; ultimate factual determination is for the finder of fact)
- Maldonado v. Thaler, 625 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2010) (intellectual-disability is a factual question for habeas review)