Robert Jennings v. William Stephens, Director
537 F. App'x 326
5th Cir.2013Background
- In 1989 Jennings was convicted of capital murder for killing a police officer and sentenced to death; at punishment counsel presented only a jail chaplain as mitigation witness and extensive criminal history was admitted.
- Post-conviction, a 1978 psychological report (the Bloom Report) suggested mild mental retardation/organic brain dysfunction but opined Jennings was malingering; counsel did not discover this report before trial.
- Subsequent state-habeas testing (QEEG, SPECT, and expert reviews) produced conflicting opinions about brain impairment and impulsivity; other records showed educational achievements and an IQ score of 105.
- Jennings argued at federal habeas that counsel were ineffective for failing to: (1) uncover and investigate the Bloom Report/mental-health mitigation, and (2) present testimony from Jennings, his mother, or his sister about his disadvantaged background; he also asserted a Penry-based prejudice theory and raised an ineffective-closing-argument claim.
- The district court granted habeas relief for ineffective assistance; the Director appealed. The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered, denying habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel failed to uncover Bloom Report and investigate mental impairment | Jennings: counsel were deficient for not finding the Bloom Report and would have pursued further psychological evaluation; prejudice follows from additional expert evidence | Director: the record available to trial counsel indicated intelligence and no defect; later dueling experts make prejudice speculative | No AEDPA relief: state court decision that lack of prejudice was reasonable; dueling experts insufficient to show no reasonable jurist would agree with state court |
| Counsel failed to present mitigation testimony of Jennings, mother, sister | Jennings: omission left jurors with no evidence of disadvantaged background, prejudicing outcome | Director: counsel reasonably strategized to avoid unsympathetic witnesses and to emphasize lack of future dangerousness; calling family carried risks | No AEDPA relief: state court reasonably found attorneys’ strategic choices (including omitting family and defendant) permissible |
| Penry-based claim (nullification instruction) / prejudice from omitted mitigation | Jennings: had counsel presented mitigation and objected, Penry/Abdul-Kabir line would require reversal | Director: claim was not fairly presented to state high court (languished in a footnote) and therefore unexhausted/defaulted | Procedurally barred: Fifth Circuit finds the Penry-based prejudice argument unexhausted and defaulted, so it cannot establish prejudice |
| Closing-argument ineffective assistance & appellate jurisdiction/COA | Jennings: counsel conceded acceptance of eligibility during closing, amounting to ineffective assistance | Director: (implicit) procedural default/timeliness issues | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Jennings failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain a COA; cross-point dismissed and COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance standard)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (counsel deficient for failing to uncover extensive mitigation records)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel must conduct reasonable mitigation investigation)
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (Penry I) (jury must be able to give meaningful effect to mitigating evidence)
- Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (Penry II) (nullification instruction inadequate for meaningful consideration)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits de novo review of state-court adjudications and requires AEDPA deference)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (AEDPA deference standard regarding what reasonable jurists would conclude)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (certificate of appealability requirement and standards)