Troy Clark v. Rick Thaler, Director
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4549
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Clark was sentenced to death in Texas after being convicted of capital murder in 2000; he challenged trial counsel’s effectiveness for not investigating mitigating evidence at punishment.
- Muse’s murder involved Clark drowning her after binding and restraining her, followed by disposing of the body in a barrel and concealing it on remote land.
- At punishment, the State presented extensive evidence of Clark’s other crimes; defense argued lack of future danger and presented actuarial risk assessment but offered no mitigating witnesses.
- Clark’s state habeas petition relied on his mother’s affidavit alleging counsel failed to contact her and on later federal affidavits detailing mitigating background.
- The state court denied relief; the federal district court denied relief but granted a COA on mitigation investigation; Pinholster and AEDPA guided review, focusing on the record before the state court.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief on mitigation investigation and denied COAs on the other ineffective-assistance claims; the court emphasized deference under AEDPA and the Strickland standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mitigation-investigation claim governed by Strickland | Clark seeks relief for failure to investigate mitigating evidence | State argues no deficient performance on record; alternatives possible | No relief: fairminded jurists could disagree, but denial affirmed under AEDPA |
| Application of Pinholster to new mitigation evidence | New mitigation evidence should be considered | Pinholster limits review to state-court record; new evidence not considered for §2254(d)(1) | Affirmed: review limited to the state-court record; new evidence not considered for §2254(d)(1) |
| Prejudice under Strickland for mitigation evidence | Additional mitigation could alter death decision | Anticipated evidence would be unlikely to change outcome given overwhelming aggravation | Denied: no reasonable probability of a different result; prejudice not shown |
| Closing argument ineffective assistance claim | Counsel’s closing violated loyalty, failed to plead for mercy | Strategy, not error; closing arguments are highly deferential | Denied: reasonable strategic closing argument; no deficiency shown |
| Impeachment strategy and opening door to Mize evidence | Defense opened door to prejudicial evidence by impeaching Bush | Strategy to impeach primary witness and preserve defense; no prejudice shown | Denied: strategy within wide range of reasonable professional assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the deficient performance and prejudice tests for ineffective assistance)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (S. Ct. 2011) (limits §2254(d)(1) review to record before state court)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (requires substantial inquiry into reasonable-decision standard under AEDPA)
- Wong v. Belmontes, 130 S. Ct. 383 (S. Ct. 2009) (illustrates prejudice and the substantial likelihood standard)
- Ladd v. Cockrell, 311 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2002) (pre–Pinholster framework for evaluating mitigation evidence)
- Gentry v. United States, 540 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (highly deferential review of defense strategy in closing arguments)
- Landrigan v. Schriro, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (discusses prejudice when defendant waives mitigation evidence (context))
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (U.S. 2004) (clarifies the standard for determining whether a decision was reasonable)