Paul Devoe, III v. Lorie Davis, Director, 16-70026

Background

Devoe was convicted in Texas state court of capital murder for killing Haylie Faulkner and Danielle Hensley and sentenced to death; state courts denied direct appeal and state habeas relief.
He filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising 15 claims, including challenges to testimony by state expert A.P. Merillat and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims concerning Merillat, Dr. Richard Coons, and mitigation investigation.
The district court denied habeas relief on all claims, denied funding for an expert under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), and refused certificates of appealability (COA); Devoe sought COAs and appealed the funding denial to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed COA requests under AEDPA standards (COA requires that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court) and reviewed the funding denial for abuse of discretion.
The panel concluded Merillat’s testimony was not shown to be false or materially prejudicial given extensive independent evidence of future dangerousness, rejected related Napue/Giglio and Brady theories, denied IAC claims (Strickland standard), and affirmed denial of § 3599(f) funding as not reasonably necessary or would be cumulative.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady claim re: Merillat's testimony	Merillat allegedly misstated prison-violence facts and omitted exculpatory details; suppression was material to future-dangerousness	State produced affidavit rebutting falsity; substantial other evidence of future dangerousness	COA denied; claim unexhausted and not materially prejudicial
Napue/Giglio (false/impeaching testimony)	Merillat falsely denied regularly testifying in capital cases; state knew and failed to correct	Merillat's affidavit says not required to testify; state did not knowingly present false testimony	COA denied; petitioner failed to show falsity, knowledge, or materiality
IAC re: preparation for Merillat	Trial counsel failed to investigate Merillat and relied inadequately on rebuttal expert	Counsel retained experienced rebuttal expert and had strategic reasons; failure to object was not objectively unreasonable	COA denied; no deficient performance or prejudice shown
IAC re: Dr. Coons testimony	Counsel should have objected to Coons on admissibility/reliability of future-dangerousness testimony	Counsel reasonably declined challenge for strategic reasons; Coble decision inapposite absent record-specific showing	COA denied; no deficient performance or prejudice
IAC re: mitigation investigation	Counsel inadequately investigated/failed to present mitigating evidence (Wiggins claim)	Counsel conducted thorough mitigation investigation and retained mitigation experts; alleged additional evidence largely cumulative	COA denied; no Strickland deficiency or reasonable probability of different result
Funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f)	Funding needed for expert to develop claims attacking Merillat's testimony	State habeas record already considered merits; Pinholster limits new factual development; expert would be cumulative	Funding denial affirmed for abuse-of-discretion: not "reasonably necessary" and would be cumulative

Key Cases Cited

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA standard; jurists of reason inquiry)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (procedural-default COA standard)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution disclosure obligations)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (false testimony/Giglio framework)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (impeachment by evidence of deals/false testimony)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (IAC two-prong test)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to counsel performance; prejudice standard)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (mitigation-investigation duties)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits on new evidence in § 2254 review)
Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (Brady materiality/"reasonable probability")