Pape v. Thaler
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12708
5th Cir.2011Background
- Pape was charged in Texas with four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child; a separate state case charged him with possession of child pornography.
- Trial witnesses were Pape’s daughter S.P., his former wife A.P., and Dr. Coffman; there was no physical evidence presented.
- Trial focused on testimonial evidence; S.P. testified to ongoing abuse; Dr. Coffman testified preliminarily after examination.
- Pape’s trial was severed from the pornography charge; he was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of indecency, with concurrent sentences totaling decades.
- Pape pursued state habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting multiple trial deficiencies by his attorneys.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and granted habeas relief, relying on new evidence; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court's evidentiary hearing complied with Pinholster | Pape asks for relief under 2254(d)(1) and argues hearing facts outside the state-court record. | State contends Pinholster bars reliance on new evidence; review limited to record before state court. | No; Pinholster precludes relying on new evidence for 2254(d)(1) review. |
| Whether the state habeas denial applied Strickland reasonably | Pape asserts trial counsel were deficient under Strickland. | State argues record shows a reasonable trial strategy and no deficient conduct. | The state court reasonably applied Strickland; no deficient performance shown. |
| Whether failure to investigate witnesses violated Strickland | Pape claims counsel failed to locate character witnesses who would testify credibly. | Counsel lacked information from Pape; investigation was reasonable strategy. | Not deficient; strategic decision and lack of witness information undercuts claim. |
| Whether decision not to impeach A.P. with lay/expert testimony was deficient | Counsel erred by not using lay or expert testimony to rebut A.P.'s credibility. | Strategy to avoid admitting the child-pornography charge; impeachment would be counterproductive. | Not deficient; strategy reasonable under state evidentiary rules. |
| Whether sentencing strategy (calling Pape a 'pedophile') was deficient | Counsel's sentencing rhetoric deprived Pape of fair mitigation. | Strategic portrayal of defendant as treatable; not unconstitutional. | Sentencing strategy fell within the deference owed to trial tactics; not deficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits 2254(d)(1) review to record before state court; relieves district court from new evidence later)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (unreasonable application vs. incorrect application of federal law; standard for 2254(d)(1))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application of federal law involves applying governing principle to facts)
- Dowthitt v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2000) (sentencing strategy and reasonable professional assistance)
- Ladd v. Cockrell, 311 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of state habeas rulings in ineffective-assistance cases)