659 F. App'x 792
5th Cir.2016Background
- Willard Allen was convicted of capital murder for the 1993 robbery and killing of Herman Ferguson; he confessed to the crime and the gun used was recovered from his car. Allen was sentenced to death; state courts denied relief and a federal district court later granted habeas relief on a jury-bias claim and ordered a new trial. The State appealed and Allen sought COAs on nine other habeas issues.
- Key trial facts: Allen confessed in detail implicating himself and alleging involvement by Gabriel Clark; Clark later entered a no-contest plea to accessory charges after Allen’s trial and was released on probation.
- Pretrial defense resources: the trial court denied Allen’s request to hire a private investigator and instead appointed an unlicensed, inexperienced undergraduate investigator (Charles Phythian); defense counsel was James Calhoun.
- Postconviction claims raised included juror misconduct (a juror, James Chester, allegedly shared outside conversations with deputies), Brady nondisclosure (informant status, prosecutor notes, phone records), coerced confession, ineffective assistance of counsel, unreliable forensic evidence, prosecutorial discretion re: Clark’s availability, and cumulative error.
- The Fifth Circuit panel granted Certificates of Appealability (COA) for three issues (Grounds Two, Six, and Ten) finding reasonable jurists could debate the matters; COAs were denied as to the other claims, with detailed AEDPA-based review of procedural bars, exhaustion, and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Allen) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ground Two — Juror considered extraneous evidence / confrontation & due process | Juror Chester told venire about conversations with deputies and influenced jurors; affidavit shows extraneous prejudice affecting deliberations. | State relied on Louisiana evidentiary bar (Art. 606(B)) and state habeas finding that statements were internal and not external influence; trial fundamentally fair. | COA granted: reasonable jurists could debate whether state court unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent and whether affidavit rebuts impartiality presumption. |
| Ground Six — Brady nondisclosure (informant status, notes, phone records) | State withheld that Clark was an informant and withheld investigator notes and phone records that could have impeached confession and pointed to alternate suspect(s). | State and magistrate: Clark didn’t testify, no plea agreement pretrial, and defense counsel could have called Clark; some subclaims waived/ inadequately briefed. | COA granted as to Brady claim (informant issue); court reserved decision on some subclaims for further consideration. |
| Ground Ten — Trial court-appointed investigator; failure to fund chosen investigator | Court-appointed investigator (Phythian) was inexperienced/unlicensed and performed poorly; Allen was denied right to effective assistance and ability to hire preferred investigator. | State and Louisiana courts found an investigator not crucial and any shortcomings harmless given the evidence; counsel still had duties. | COA granted limited to claim about the court-appointed investigator (reasonable jurists could debate whether appointment violated due process/right to counsel). |
| Ground Twelve — Coerced confession (promises/threats) | Allen claims promises of reduced charge/term and threats to prosecute his sister coerced his confession. | State procedural default: claim not preserved on direct appeal; state habeas denied on procedural grounds and merits; no new evidence or diligence to obtain hearing. | COA denied: procedural-default rules and failure to show diligence or actual innocence make debate among jurists unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (due process violated by juror prejudice from pretrial publicity)
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892) (juror testimony admissible regarding extraneous prejudicial information)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA review limited to state-court record)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (state must provide access to psychiatric experts when needed to present defense)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (limits on selective prosecution)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987) (post-trial juror testimony about internal jury matters is generally inadmissible)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (exclusion of critical evidence can violate due process)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for granting COA; resolve doubts in capital cases in petitioner’s favor)