995 F.3d 432
5th Cir.2021Background
- In March 2004 Andre Lee Thomas (black) killed his estranged white wife and two children; he pled not guilty by reason of insanity and was psychotic at the time. The State argued the psychosis was voluntarily induced by high-dose Coricidin (DXM).
- Trial counsel were R.J. Hagood and Bobbie Peterson; an all-white jury convicted Thomas and sentenced him to death in 2005.
- Jury questionnaires revealed three seated jurors (Ulmer, Copeland, Armstrong) expressing opposition to interracial marriage; only Ulmer was directly questioned about those views at voir dire.
- Thomas raised multiple state habeas claims; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the trial court findings and denied relief. Federal district court denied federal habeas relief; Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on four issues and affirmed.
- Central legal themes: AEDPA deference to state-court rulings, Strickland ineffective assistance framework, competency to stand trial, whether defense should have presented pharmacological expert, and adequacy of mitigation investigation and presentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Juror racial bias and counsel's voir dire | Thomas: seated jurors who opposed interracial marriage tainted jury; counsel ineffective for not probing or striking them | State: jurors indicated ability to decide on evidence; counsel made reasonable strategic choices during voir dire | Denied. AEDPA deference; Ulmer affirmatively said he could be impartial and state court reasonably found no disqualifying bias; counsel's voir dire choices fall within reasonable strategy under Strickland |
| 2) Failure to challenge competency to stand trial | Thomas: counsel should have renewed competency challenge after return from hospital; reasonable probability challenge would have succeeded | State: medical testing showed malingering and experts found Thomas competent; counsel interacted with defendant and reasonably concluded no basis for new challenge | Denied. State court reasonably found counsel's conduct was not objectively unreasonable given evidence of malingering and counsel's observations |
| 3) Failure to present pharmacology expert to rebut voluntary-intoxication theory | Thomas: counsel failed to rebut State's DXM theory with pharmacology expert; prejudice likely because psychosis might be organic | State: defense presented psychiatrist (Dr Gripon) and consulted other experts; counsel chose investigatory strategy and even called some State experts to blunt testimony | Denied. State court reasonably concluded counsel investigated and presented evidence sufficient to contest the State's predicate; no Strickland violation shown |
| 4) Inadequacy of mitigation investigation and presentation | Thomas: counsel failed to uncover and present extensive mitigating history of abuse, mental illness, and neglect; reasonable probability sentence would differ | State: counsel spent months preparing, presented substantial mitigation during guilt phase and sentencing, made strategic choices about witnesses | Denied. State court findings that counsel investigated and made strategic choices were reasonable under AEDPA and Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (supreme court limits recategorizing Rule 60(b) motions as successive habeas)
- Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (Supreme Court rule that Rule 59(e) motions are not to be treated as successive habeas)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference and standard for evaluating state-court application of Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (standard for competency to stand trial inquiry)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (duty to investigate mitigating evidence in capital cases)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (duty to examine sentencing-phase records and investigate mitigation)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (prejudice from inadequate mitigation investigation)
- Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (racially biased juror statements and juror impartiality principles)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (preconceived notions do not alone disqualify juror if they can set aside views)
- Virgil v. Dretke, 446 F.3d 598 (5th Cir.; jurors unequivocally unable to be impartial require challenge)
- Draughon v. Dretke, 427 F.3d 286 (5th Cir.; counsel need to rebut prosecution's central factual predicate with expert where reasonable)