914 F.3d 357
5th Cir.2019Background
- In 1992 Rick Allan Rhoades was convicted in Texas of capital murder for killing two brothers and sentenced to death; he later pursued state habeas and federal habeas relief.
- Rhoades gave a written confession while in custody for an unrelated burglary that described stabbing both victims and taking money/clothes.
- During the punishment phase the State presented prior convictions, inmate violence evidence, and testimony suggesting dangerousness; defense presented family, expert, and prison-adjustment witnesses.
- On appeal and habeas, three issues received a certificate of appealability: (1) exclusion of eleven childhood photographs offered as mitigation; (2) admission of testimony about furlough eligibility for life-sentenced capital inmates; (3) Batson challenge to two peremptory strikes.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court: it held any error in excluding photos was harmless under Brecht; furlough testimony was not materially false/misleading (and Simmons inapplicable); and no Batson violation was shown given the record and deference to state findings.
Issues
| Issue | Rhoades' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of childhood photos at punishment | Photos were constitutionally relevant mitigation that humanized Rhoades and could affect moral culpability | Photos were irrelevant to moral blameworthiness and duplicative of other mitigation testimony | Exclusion may have been error under Lockett/Eddings/Skipper but any error was harmless under Brecht given weight of aggravating evidence |
| Testimony about furlough eligibility | Smithy’s testimony permitted jurors to speculate that life-sentenced capital inmates could be furloughed, misleadingly undercutting mitigation; comparable to Simmons due process issue | Testimony was factually correct as to emergency furloughs; defense could cross-examine and elicit absence of known furloughs; subsequent statutory changes do not retroactively invalidate the testimony | No due-process violation: testimony not materially false or misleading at trial; Simmons distinguishes parole-ineligibility from furlough testimony; claim meritless |
| Batson challenge to two peremptory strikes (Holiday, Randle) | Prosecutor questioned these black veniremembers differently and offered pretextual reasons; comparative analysis would show disparate treatment | Reasons were race-neutral (demeanor, brevity, family incarceration ties, attitudes about rehabilitation/childhood mitigation); record does not show purposeful discrimination | State court’s Batson finding was not unreasonable; comparative review does not show pretext; no Batson violation proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (plurality) (sentencer must be allowed to consider any relevant mitigating factor)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (state may not refuse to consider relevant mitigating evidence)
- Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (exclusion of evidence of good behavior awaiting trial can violate mitigation rights)
- Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (1990) (State may instruct jury to avoid sympathy; does not excuse barring relevant mitigating evidence)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas relief for trial error requires substantial and injurious effect standard)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) (due process requires jury be informed of parole ineligibility when future dangerousness is at issue)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (comparative juror analysis can reveal Batson pretext)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (effect of last state-court decision on procedural default analysis)
- Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 (1988) (post-trial invalidation of an aggravating circumstance requires relief when it provided no legitimate support for death sentence)
- Chamberlin v. Fisher, 885 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2018) (state courts not always required sua sponte to perform comparative juror analysis)