Kevan Brumfield v. Burl Cain, Warden
744 F.3d 918
5th Cir.2014Background
- In 1995 Kevan Brumfield was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death; Louisiana affirmed and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- After Atkins v. Virginia (prohibiting execution of mentally retarded defendants), Brumfield amended state post-conviction filings to assert mental retardation and sought funding to develop the claim.
- The state trial court denied an Atkins hearing, finding the record (including IQ testing around 75 and adaptive-functioning evidence) did not show impairment; the Louisiana Supreme Court denied relief.
- Brumfield filed federal habeas, obtained federal funding and an evidentiary hearing in district court; after the hearing the district court granted habeas relief, finding Brumfield intellectually disabled and enjoining his execution.
- The State appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed: it held the state court’s denial was an on-the-merits decision entitled to AEDPA deference and that the district court erred in conducting and relying on the federal evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brumfield) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state court’s denial of an Atkins hearing was entitled to AEDPA deference | State court abused discretion by denying an Atkins hearing and failing to provide funding to develop the claim | State court ruled on the merits; no Supreme Court precedent requires funding to establish a prima facie Atkins claim | The Fifth Circuit: state court decision was on the merits and entitled to AEDPA deference |
| Whether due process requires the state to provide funds to develop an Atkins prima facie case | Brumfield: due process (as interpreted in Ford/Panetti) entitles petitioner to funding to present expert evidence | State: Supreme Court cases require hearings after a substantial threshold showing but do not obligate states to provide funds to develop that showing | Held: No clearly established Supreme Court rule requires states to provide funding to make out a prima facie Atkins claim |
| Whether the district court properly conducted a federal evidentiary hearing and considered new evidence under §2254(d) | Brumfield: additional federal evidence showed mental retardation and justified habeas relief | State: Pinholster limits §2254(d) review to the state-court record; the district court should not have held/use a federal evidentiary hearing to overcome AEDPA deference | Held: District court erred to rely on evidence produced first in federal court; Pinholster bars using that evidence to overcome AEDPA deference |
| Whether Brumfield proved intellectual disability under Louisiana law | Brumfield: IQ ~75 plus adaptive deficits, developmental history, and expert testimony support Atkins claim | State: Record did not show significant adaptive deficits; some experts diagnosed other disorders and evidence supported capacity for daily functioning | Held: Under the state-court record, Brumfield failed to satisfy Louisiana’s two-prong test; state court did not unreasonably find no entitlement to an Atkins hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (barred execution of mentally retarded defendants)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (due process requires fair hearing when insanity claim meets threshold)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (procedural protections and opportunity to present expert evidence after substantial threshold showing of incompetency)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (presumption that state courts adjudicate federal claims on the merits for AEDPA purposes)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010) (distinguishing unreasonable application from incorrect application under AEDPA)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (federal habeas review under §2254(d) is limited to the state-court record)
- Blue v. Thaler, 665 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2011) (discussing necessity of AEDPA deference and limits on federal evidentiary hearings)