Ward v. Stephens, Director TDCJ-CID, 3:10-cv-02101

Background

Adam Kelly Ward was convicted in Texas (2007) of capital murder for shooting a city code enforcement officer; conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
At trial Ward asserted mental illness defenses; extensive mental-health evaluations and records were presented (multiple experts diagnosing a complex picture including delusional/bipolar features and antisocial traits).
In postconviction proceedings Ward raised (1) alleged improper ex parte juror contact by a prosecutor-acquaintance (Dr. Zelhart), (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for an allegedly inadequate mitigation/psychosocial investigation, (3) Eighth Amendment bar to execution based on severe mental illness, and (4–5) claims based on prejudicial pretrial publicity and trial counsel’s failure to move for change of venue.
The state habeas court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief; Ward filed federal habeas petition under AEDPA standards.
The district court reviewed the record (including competency-trial testimony, mitigation investigation records, juror questionnaires, and press coverage) and denied habeas relief as to all claims, concluding state-court rulings were not unreasonable and some claims were unexhausted/foreclosed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Improper juror contact (Remmer-type claim)	Zelhart, associated with prosecutor, sat and talked with jurors at lunch; this extraneous contact requires presumption of prejudice and relief.	Zelhart was not a state agent, did not discuss the trial with jurors, and no juror showed implied or actual bias or prejudice.	Denied — no evidence contact concerned the trial; state court findings that Zelhart was not a state agent or that jurors were biased were reasonable under AEDPA.
2. IATC — deficient mitigation investigation	Trial team failed to conduct adequate psychosocial history, misdiagnosed ASPD, and omitted mitigation witnesses/evidence causing prejudice at sentencing.	Defense had substantial funding, multiple experts, voluminous records and witnesses; strategy and investigator use were reasonable; any additional evidence would not create reasonable probability of a different sentence.	Denied — state-court Strickland adjudication not unreasonable; no reasonable probability of a different outcome.
3. Eighth Amendment bar to executing mentally ill defendants	Severe mental illness renders Ward categorically ineligible for execution (analogizing to Atkins/Roper).	No Supreme Court rule bars execution of mentally ill; Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses extending Atkins/Roper to mental illness.	Denied — claim legally foreclosed; court declines to adopt new Eighth Amendment rule.
4–5. Pretrial publicity / failure to seek change of venue (and related IATC)	Community saturation and juror exposure made impartial jury impossible; counsel ineffective for not moving venue.	Publicity was largely factual, voir dire and repeated admonitions protected impartiality; no actual juror prejudice; motion would have been futile.	Denied — no actual prejudice shown; change-of-venue/IATC claim lacked merit and is exhausted/foreclosed accordingly.

Key Cases Cited

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (rebuttable presumption of prejudice from private contact with juror)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (jury intrusion requires showing it affected deliberations)
Phillips v. United States, 455 U.S. 209 (remedy for juror partiality is a hearing to prove actual bias)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (counsel's duty to investigate mitigating evidence in capital sentencing)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment bars executing intellectually disabled defendants)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (Eighth Amendment bars executing juveniles)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (pretrial publicity and impartial jury standard)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (juror impartiality does not require ignorance of case)
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (extreme prejudicial publicity can deny fair trial)
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (televised confession created presumption of prejudice)
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (courtroom media intrusion can warrant reversal)
Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (upholding conviction despite publicity where voir dire showed no disqualification)