Cargill, Kimberly
This text of Cargill, Kimberly (Cargill, Kimberly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
JJ\ 'ff\). ... ,. try ,~, Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ~I From Smith County ~ Ex Parte: KIMBERLY CARGILL (Name of ,A.pplicant) 241stoistnctcourt JudiceOOFfift 8fuftEIVEO IN OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TRIAL COURT WRIT NO. 241-1510-10-A JUN 06 2016 CLERK'S SUMMARY SHEET VOLUME 1
Abel Acosta, Clerk Applicant's Name : KIMBERLY CARGILL (As reflected on the Judgment)
Offense: CAPITAL MURDER BY TERROR THREAT/OTHER FELONY (As reflected on the Judgment)
Cause No: 241-1510-10 (As reflected on Judgment)
Plea: Not Guilty (As reflected on Judgment)
Sentence: DEATH PENALTY/ Texas Department of Criminal Justice (As described on the Judgment)
Trial Date: 05/3112012 (Date upon which sentence was imposed)
Judge's Name: Jack Skeen, Jr. (Judge presiding at trial)
Appeal No: AP-76,819 (If applicable)
Citation to Opinion: S.W.3d (If applicable)
Hearing Held: No (Pertaining to the application for writ)
Findings and Conclusions Filed: 05/20/16 Recommendation: Denied (Trial court's recommendation regarding application)
Judge's Name: Jack Skeen, Jr. (Judge presiding over habeas proceedings) • • Smith County Courthouse 100 N. Broadway, Room 204 Lois Rogers (903) 590-1660 Fax(903)590-1661 Tyler, Texas 75702 Smith County District Clerk
In the 241 st District Court of Smith County,
Texas, the Honorable, JACK SKEEN, JR. Judge
Presiding, the following proceedings were held and the following
Instruments and other papers were filed in this cause, to wit:
Trial Court Cause No. 241-1510-10-A
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant
vs.
KIMBERLY CARGILL, Appellee • •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KIMBERLY CARGILL
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 241-1510-10
WRIT NO. 241-1510-10-A
INDEX
Document Title File Date Page
VOLUME I
1. Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 08/19/14 1-193
VOLUME II .
2. Exhibits 1-38 To Initial Application 08/19/14 194-474
VOLUME Ill
3. Indictment 09/22/11 475-476 4. Judgment 06/01/12 477-481 5. Motion to Seal Exhibits 08/19/16 482-485 6. Letter from Brad Levenson 08/25/14 486-489 7. State's Preliminary Answer 09/12/14 490-494 8. Response to State'sPreliminary Answer 09/19/14 495-501 9. Memorandum Order 09/26/14 502-503 10. Order-Request to Seal Exhibits 09/26/14 504 11. Request for Live Status Conference 09/30/14 505-507 12. Affidavit of Douglas Parks 12/29/14 508-510 13. Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 01/08/15 511-512 14. Order-Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 01/08/15 513 15. Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 03/09/15 514-516 16. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 03/09/15 517 17. Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 05/06/15 518-519 • • 18. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 05/08/15 520 19. Affidavit of J. Brett Harrison 05/22/15 521-551 20. Affidavit of Jeff Haas 05/22/15 552-569 21. Motion to Order Live Evidentiary Hearing 06/10/15 570-578 22. State's Response to Motion to Evidentiary Hearing 06/16/15 579-593
VOLUME IV
23. State's Supplemental Answer 07/31/15 594-918
VOLUMEV
24. Order 08/19/15 919 25. Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed FFCL 09/09/15 920-925 26. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 09/09/15 926-927 27. Response to State's Supplemental Answer 11/30/15 928-939 28. Objection to Court Making Findings of Fact 11/30/15 940-1079 29. Order from Court of Criminal Appeals 12/16/15 1080-1082 30. Order Denying Motion for Live Evidentiary Hearing 05/20/16 1083 31. Findings of Fact 05/23/16 1084-1156 32. Docket Sheet 1157-1164 • . . • FtLiiD LOIS ·ROGERS IN THE 24lST JUDICIAL DIS~S6VftERK SMJrll COUNTY, n,..A(IG-19 1'11-1~·42 r
&M~ ev. . . ·-.. .-. ) Trial C!iluse No. EX PARTE ) 241-151 0-10 Kimberly Cargill ) APPLICANT ) ) )
INITIAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF'HABEAS CORPUS (FILED PURSUANT TO tEX. CODE ·cRIM. PROC. ART. 11.07i)
BRAD D.. LEVENSON (No. 24073411) Pi.:rect()r, Ofli.ce ofC~piW Writs (Email: Brad.Leve·nson@ocw.texas.gov) JANET GILGER-VANDERZANDEN (No.24079978) (Email:· Janet.Qilg~r-V an4~rZanden@9CW.~t~as_;gov) DEREK VERHAGEN (No. 24090535) . (Ema1k Derek. VerHagen@ocw.texas.gov) Po~-C~mvi~ion AUomeys Office of capital Writs 1700 N. Congress Ave., Su1te.46.0 AUstin; Texa.s 787Ql (512) 463,;8.600 (5)2) 4()3-8~9Q (fax)
Attorneys for· Applicant
1 • • TAJILE OF CONTENTS
. . . . . - .. TABLE OF CQ'NTE:NTS ...................................................................... ~~····-··-··~-···.··-·····-··.·-·tl. .. . . . . -. ' TABLE OF At.ITH.ORITIES . ...........-..-.-.-......-...-•. .-.-..··-····· ·-··--· ................ -.-.-•.-.-.-..................... ....... .-........ . .-.........--........-... -............... ,., ... .. -...-.-. .-.-.... . . ..-.- . . ~ ......... tx
PR.OCE~D~ IDSTORY ...-..-......................... ~··········································-···-·.-.···-····-···-···~-····2 A. Trial Coutt P.roceedlngs·•..•....••...••••••••.•••••_•._.._ ..•. ~.~-~-~-·!,'!'."·''·'·-·-··-~·-·-·:-:·~··-··:-:··· 2
STATEI\IiE.NT OF FACTS.-.-..... . ... - ................................ . .. .. . -.......-..-....................-.......-........................................ 4 ' ~.
a~ Gu.ilt Pha:s·e Presentation by the Defense ..........:·.··.·-=··-··=~··:·-=~··:·•.·:~·:.. •:••. ·:····-·:· 8 C. Guflt Ph:a:s¢- Rebuttal by the S~ .....:;:.....:~ ...~:···~:~···•:••··•·•·····•··•·•········''· 11 D. Punishment Phase Pn;~lalion by· the S~ ·:····:-:.•·:·:··:·.•·•:·:····:~··:-:··~:~.. ·:•·•.1 i E. ~hrtleht Phase Presentation by the Defense ........ - .................. 13
F. Punishment Phase Reblittal by theSta~ .....................~·-·.··.···....~··...:·....··:~... 13
B. Ineffective AssiStaiice of Appellate Counsel.. ....................... ~ ....... 18
C. Sc:ope of tbe Wai v.er of At;tol'I).~-CU~nt Privi.h;_ge ·:·····~········.....!':.. •••·• .. 19 AAG~ ···:~~···~:·•··:·················•· . ····i··············································································2i CLAIM ONE TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR, FAiLING TO PRESEN.T EVIPENCE THAT CHERRY WALKER DIED OF SUDDEN UNE:xPEctan Pf:ATH IN EJ>U.,ESPY RAll{E.R THAN f.IOMlClPAL 'VIOLEN'CE ...........................................................'!··.··-~··.··-~·-···.·····~:··.··.·~·-·.·~:~·-··!i.·•,•:•···-:.:•·•·-..•·•·•................ 2·2 A. . SUDE.P Eviden~e ~e1.1~~4 Q~_l)g tb~ OWIVJ.nrwc~nce Ph~ qf Tri·at ••·•:·•······· .-.-.-....-..-.......... ~········· .....................................................................22
.. 11
2 • • I. ~xp.l~~Qn of SUDEP-......~..-..._.-..•_-..:•.··-·-•··~····-•·••···-•··:·_··:·:·.··-·-··:·:....._~····:·:··:·:~·~:·:,. ~7 2.·. Waiker-'s Medical 'Hlsto.ry Reveals .Milltiple Risk Factors for .s'Ul>2.P- •~-:~ ·~:•:Ill! ·~:~ ••:•:• • •:•.·~:.;_...:.·.... ~:•:• • •:••.•-.:.; •.•:•:••-•:•:4 • -.:4.•p,'••.• ~):a •:•:•:•.' •. ~:• !':~ •:•.·~=··~·•:•:• •• n • ~·· •:•• •••• 28 1 ···.•.• 1 1 .•. • :•:• •:• 1 ·;·
3. Tb~·C.i.~~s ofW~er's ~afh ~ ~~~~ve o.fSU.:O~.P33 4. The .AutOpsy of Cherry Walker is Consistent with.SUDEP ......... 34 5. Waiker's Death Is Likely to Have Been a s·UDEP Death.•...._ ....._ .. 36 C. Ineffective ,AssiStance ofTI:il$1 C.o~l.-.:..... ~:•··:·:·.·:·:•·.·:·:·....;.. _.;.-.:.-·x·"f.~······=~· 37 l. Trial C.ounsePs· Failure tQ Call an Exp~ l.i.ke Or. Sttm 2_:. ·T·"at ... 1·,.., F ··1 --- Pte··.-•..a'ced Car '1.1 . n.. eo·unse. 0 81.Jl~ _· ~~· - ...
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JJ\ 'ff\). ... ,. try ,~, Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ~I From Smith County ~ Ex Parte: KIMBERLY CARGILL (Name of ,A.pplicant) 241stoistnctcourt JudiceOOFfift 8fuftEIVEO IN OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TRIAL COURT WRIT NO. 241-1510-10-A JUN 06 2016 CLERK'S SUMMARY SHEET VOLUME 1
Abel Acosta, Clerk Applicant's Name : KIMBERLY CARGILL (As reflected on the Judgment)
Offense: CAPITAL MURDER BY TERROR THREAT/OTHER FELONY (As reflected on the Judgment)
Cause No: 241-1510-10 (As reflected on Judgment)
Plea: Not Guilty (As reflected on Judgment)
Sentence: DEATH PENALTY/ Texas Department of Criminal Justice (As described on the Judgment)
Trial Date: 05/3112012 (Date upon which sentence was imposed)
Judge's Name: Jack Skeen, Jr. (Judge presiding at trial)
Appeal No: AP-76,819 (If applicable)
Citation to Opinion: S.W.3d (If applicable)
Hearing Held: No (Pertaining to the application for writ)
Findings and Conclusions Filed: 05/20/16 Recommendation: Denied (Trial court's recommendation regarding application)
Judge's Name: Jack Skeen, Jr. (Judge presiding over habeas proceedings) • • Smith County Courthouse 100 N. Broadway, Room 204 Lois Rogers (903) 590-1660 Fax(903)590-1661 Tyler, Texas 75702 Smith County District Clerk
In the 241 st District Court of Smith County,
Texas, the Honorable, JACK SKEEN, JR. Judge
Presiding, the following proceedings were held and the following
Instruments and other papers were filed in this cause, to wit:
Trial Court Cause No. 241-1510-10-A
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant
vs.
KIMBERLY CARGILL, Appellee • •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KIMBERLY CARGILL
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 241-1510-10
WRIT NO. 241-1510-10-A
INDEX
Document Title File Date Page
VOLUME I
1. Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 08/19/14 1-193
VOLUME II .
2. Exhibits 1-38 To Initial Application 08/19/14 194-474
VOLUME Ill
3. Indictment 09/22/11 475-476 4. Judgment 06/01/12 477-481 5. Motion to Seal Exhibits 08/19/16 482-485 6. Letter from Brad Levenson 08/25/14 486-489 7. State's Preliminary Answer 09/12/14 490-494 8. Response to State'sPreliminary Answer 09/19/14 495-501 9. Memorandum Order 09/26/14 502-503 10. Order-Request to Seal Exhibits 09/26/14 504 11. Request for Live Status Conference 09/30/14 505-507 12. Affidavit of Douglas Parks 12/29/14 508-510 13. Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 01/08/15 511-512 14. Order-Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 01/08/15 513 15. Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 03/09/15 514-516 16. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 03/09/15 517 17. Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 05/06/15 518-519 • • 18. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 05/08/15 520 19. Affidavit of J. Brett Harrison 05/22/15 521-551 20. Affidavit of Jeff Haas 05/22/15 552-569 21. Motion to Order Live Evidentiary Hearing 06/10/15 570-578 22. State's Response to Motion to Evidentiary Hearing 06/16/15 579-593
VOLUME IV
23. State's Supplemental Answer 07/31/15 594-918
VOLUMEV
24. Order 08/19/15 919 25. Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed FFCL 09/09/15 920-925 26. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 09/09/15 926-927 27. Response to State's Supplemental Answer 11/30/15 928-939 28. Objection to Court Making Findings of Fact 11/30/15 940-1079 29. Order from Court of Criminal Appeals 12/16/15 1080-1082 30. Order Denying Motion for Live Evidentiary Hearing 05/20/16 1083 31. Findings of Fact 05/23/16 1084-1156 32. Docket Sheet 1157-1164 • . . • FtLiiD LOIS ·ROGERS IN THE 24lST JUDICIAL DIS~S6VftERK SMJrll COUNTY, n,..A(IG-19 1'11-1~·42 r
&M~ ev. . . ·-.. .-. ) Trial C!iluse No. EX PARTE ) 241-151 0-10 Kimberly Cargill ) APPLICANT ) ) )
INITIAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF'HABEAS CORPUS (FILED PURSUANT TO tEX. CODE ·cRIM. PROC. ART. 11.07i)
BRAD D.. LEVENSON (No. 24073411) Pi.:rect()r, Ofli.ce ofC~piW Writs (Email: Brad.Leve·nson@ocw.texas.gov) JANET GILGER-VANDERZANDEN (No.24079978) (Email:· Janet.Qilg~r-V an4~rZanden@9CW.~t~as_;gov) DEREK VERHAGEN (No. 24090535) . (Ema1k Derek. VerHagen@ocw.texas.gov) Po~-C~mvi~ion AUomeys Office of capital Writs 1700 N. Congress Ave., Su1te.46.0 AUstin; Texa.s 787Ql (512) 463,;8.600 (5)2) 4()3-8~9Q (fax)
Attorneys for· Applicant
1 • • TAJILE OF CONTENTS
. . . . . - .. TABLE OF CQ'NTE:NTS ...................................................................... ~~····-··-··~-···.··-·····-··.·-·tl. .. . . . . -. ' TABLE OF At.ITH.ORITIES . ...........-..-.-.-......-...-•. .-.-..··-····· ·-··--· ................ -.-.-•.-.-.-..................... ....... .-........ . .-.........--........-... -............... ,., ... .. -...-.-. .-.-.... . . ..-.- . . ~ ......... tx
PR.OCE~D~ IDSTORY ...-..-......................... ~··········································-···-·.-.···-····-···-···~-····2 A. Trial Coutt P.roceedlngs·•..•....••...••••••••.•••••_•._.._ ..•. ~.~-~-~-·!,'!'."·''·'·-·-··-~·-·-·:-:·~··-··:-:··· 2
STATEI\IiE.NT OF FACTS.-.-..... . ... - ................................ . .. .. . -.......-..-....................-.......-........................................ 4 ' ~.
a~ Gu.ilt Pha:s·e Presentation by the Defense ..........:·.··.·-=··-··=~··:·-=~··:·•.·:~·:.. •:••. ·:····-·:· 8 C. Guflt Ph:a:s¢- Rebuttal by the S~ .....:;:.....:~ ...~:···~:~···•:••··•·•·····•··•·•········''· 11 D. Punishment Phase Pn;~lalion by· the S~ ·:····:-:.•·:·:··:·.•·•:·:····:~··:-:··~:~.. ·:•·•.1 i E. ~hrtleht Phase Presentation by the Defense ........ - .................. 13
F. Punishment Phase Reblittal by theSta~ .....................~·-·.··.···....~··...:·....··:~... 13
B. Ineffective AssiStaiice of Appellate Counsel.. ....................... ~ ....... 18
C. Sc:ope of tbe Wai v.er of At;tol'I).~-CU~nt Privi.h;_ge ·:·····~········.....!':.. •••·• .. 19 AAG~ ···:~~···~:·•··:·················•· . ····i··············································································2i CLAIM ONE TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR, FAiLING TO PRESEN.T EVIPENCE THAT CHERRY WALKER DIED OF SUDDEN UNE:xPEctan Pf:ATH IN EJ>U.,ESPY RAll{E.R THAN f.IOMlClPAL 'VIOLEN'CE ...........................................................'!··.··-~··.··-~·-···.·····~:··.··.·~·-·.·~:~·-··!i.·•,•:•···-:.:•·•·-..•·•·•................ 2·2 A. . SUDE.P Eviden~e ~e1.1~~4 Q~_l)g tb~ OWIVJ.nrwc~nce Ph~ qf Tri·at ••·•:·•······· .-.-.-....-..-.......... ~········· .....................................................................22
.. 11
2 • • I. ~xp.l~~Qn of SUDEP-......~..-..._.-..•_-..:•.··-·-•··~····-•·••···-•··:·_··:·:·.··-·-··:·:....._~····:·:··:·:~·~:·:,. ~7 2.·. Waiker-'s Medical 'Hlsto.ry Reveals .Milltiple Risk Factors for .s'Ul>2.P- •~-:~ ·~:•:Ill! ·~:~ ••:•:• • •:•.·~:.;_...:.·.... ~:•:• • •:••.•-.:.; •.•:•:••-•:•:4 • -.:4.•p,'••.• ~):a •:•:•:•.' •. ~:• !':~ •:•.·~=··~·•:•:• •• n • ~·· •:•• •••• 28 1 ···.•.• 1 1 .•. • :•:• •:• 1 ·;·
3. Tb~·C.i.~~s ofW~er's ~afh ~ ~~~~ve o.fSU.:O~.P33 4. The .AutOpsy of Cherry Walker is Consistent with.SUDEP ......... 34 5. Waiker's Death Is Likely to Have Been a s·UDEP Death.•...._ ....._ .. 36 C. Ineffective ,AssiStance ofTI:il$1 C.o~l.-.:..... ~:•··:·:·.·:·:•·.·:·:·....;.. _.;.-.:.-·x·"f.~······=~· 37 l. Trial C.ounsePs· Failure tQ Call an Exp~ l.i.ke Or. Sttm 2_:. ·T·"at ... 1·,.., F ··1 --- Pte··.-•..a'ced Car '1.1 . n.. eo·unse. 0 81.Jl~ _· ~~· - ... :gJ, ..·:~-:-...e.•:t:•:··:·:~··:·:··~:·:•...:•:•··•:•...··:·~··-· 41 CLAIM TWO TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR, FAILlNG TO OBJEct tO VIctiM IMPAct l;.VIPENCE PRESENTED DuRING THE GUILT/1iNN~C.e PlV\S_E.· OF·~ •:·:···~··•:•·•:•··:·:·.··:-:..:·:···:•··:·:··:·:···~:••·:·:···:~···.•···~:···:·:····44 A. Tri:ai Co:unsel Has a DQty to ~~e Eqor by ~ PJ;oper· Obj e'¢l;,ioJ,lS. ·~:·,:~··.·:·:• •.• ·~~···:·:·:· ....7~••~. ·:• ............ •:· • .-...-••-. ..........i .-•••-..................................... , •••••••••.•••• -44. ,, ' :a.. Victim Impact Evidence is lnadmlsSible during the G~l~o~n~ Phase of Tri•J·:~•..:.-.·.·.•·:~ ·~·:·:·.·•:.- ··:•·.· ·~o.··-·:•.·-•:o.··:"-· .·.·:·:~ ·:·:·'-·:·:··:••.•.• :·:· ·:·:·:·:••:•·:·:•·:· •:-:• .-..•.•:•• 4 S C. Trial CQunsel Fajled to Object tp ~e Victim Impact Testimcmy of Walker;s ·Stepmoth.er as mdev.a:n:t ...................................._.._.._............._.............................!.·· 46 D. Trial Co~l Faile_d to Object tQ th~ lrrelev311t Testimony Offered by Joseph.Mayo ..•-..........................................................................................'................ 48- E:. ·-was Prejudiced by Trial Couns¢l's Failure t9 Qbje~ to Cargill I~l~van~ Testimony and.Ptes·erve Error for. Appeal.. .............~ .....-................. so CLAiM 'tHREE TRIAL COUNSEL WERE. INEFFECtiVE FOR FAILING to OBJECT TO IMPROPER LAY TESTIMONY liY BR;ENDA WHITAKER DURING 11:1E Gl)JtT/INN.OCEN<$ PHA_SE Of TRIAL.-.:·•:..-·:·:-:······;.-...-.. .-.................... S1 A. Tri~ Counsel H~ a Duty to Preserve Error by Making Ptope·r Obj-ections ···································~································· .................-..................-.-...-....-•. s1 3 • • 1. L4ni~on o~ ~Y Witne$$ Opinions .......................................... ;52 2. .Counsel May Not Engage in Arguinentative Questionihg ....... ·~-····53 B. Trial Counsel Failed to Object ~ ~e Jtpproper Lay 9J'iriion EJj·~ited ftom·a.~n_diJ 'Wil.itek,er~·:··········•·•·············· ...-..·t· .-............ -.......... ·············-·-··-·-·":··-·-·· ••••_•.54 c. dargfJ:l was Prejudiced by Trial COunsei's ·Fwlu:re to ObJect to the .Improper 4Y Te:sfun.ony of B~n¢1. Whi~~-·:·.-.·:~··.•:o.·.·:·:..:-.......... ·:··.·~···· -:i..:·:·=··:~··:~··:;·~·:·······.. 57 CLAIM FOUR TRIAL CO~S:EL WERE JNEFfEctrvE FOR FAILlTRE TO REQUEST A CHANGE· OF· VENUE OUE TO INPLAM1\1ATORY PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY., .... '..............................-...............-.. '..... .-...._.-.._.-. _...•.• ._.-. ,_. ·-· ·-~ ._._.,..!~! ·-· •.•: ··-· ·:•··-··:~·!':··:r€• ··~=--. ·:··:~··· 5·8 A. The Media Coverage o.f C~giU's ~s:t and Tria.l W3.!l Exten.siye -.~d lnfl&I:Ii~r)' ........................... ~.................................,..........................................- ..........59 Cqtll Was Preju4,ice4 by T$.J Co~Ps Fail~ to Move for· a B. Change. of Ven~· ._..·.··~-·-··· ·~-· ~-·-·:~·-·.··:~· ... -:~ ·.·) ~:~ ·:•·•:(• ··~:~. i.··~· ·~·. ·•· · · -~·· ...........). -.·~··:(·.•··.•· ·:·:· . . . . . . (._. ..-:·:· ._._.. 65:· C.. Conchisi9n ................................................·.··•·····•·· ............~ .........:.................................. 69 CLAIM FIVE· CARGILi.. RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF DIRECT APPEAL COUN.S~I. REGAAP.ING THE IMPROPER AND PREJUDICIAL ADMISSION OF AN AutOPSY PHOTOGRAPH ..................... 69 • .... • ' I~ • . • . . .. • • •• •• •. •. APPellate Co\iiisel Perfotmed Ineffectively When Faillng tQ A. ~ppeal Jri~ Co1:1JlSeVs Ovet:~Vl~ Qbje~on. tp th~ Awm.~~cm of tb.~ J.\"l~~op~y Ph<>t9pph DlJ,ring th~Testimoriy o.fCh.erry Wal.ker's Hairdte$ser:.....~...._, ......... 70 B. The Autop&y Pho.to Used by the State During the· TestP:nony of W~er'·s ~~ser W~ F~ More ~judicial Than Probative and ThUs Inadmissible....................................................................................................·.... -.:........... 71 C. Co~c.hision ..............................................-.·.·.·-.··.·.·····.··:.<··.··~··.·K•·.··:-:·.•···:-:·:··~:•·:o·•:•·."-·~=·····•:•··73 CLAJM SIX THE STATE tbMMrttEfi MISCONDUCT WHEN IT ENGAGED IN IMPROPER ARGuMENT TIIROVGHOUT CARGILL'S TRIAL, ANP l'RJAL COUNSEL WS.RE INEFFECTIVE FOR FA~ING to OJ)JEct TO tHE OREAT MAJORITY OF 11-IESE IMPROPRIETIES .................................... 74 B~. The:: State'.s ~.onduct ....................................... ~·~-··-········~-··-····-··-··.~~:·····--·-·.··:··~.··.:.:·· 77 iv 4 • • L Prosec"Ution TesnfYing to Facts and AsSertions Not in Evidence 77 ~. 3. ReligioUs Imageey .......................................................................... :~~····-·.·:·~:·:·:~.. 8.5 4. $i 7. $yq1pathetic Referetices to the Victim ..............................................:.. ·:•· 91 8. DII:n.in;lshing the Magti.it;ude of the Jtg:y's Res~il;Jil"ity--:.·;,.y..-.......92 c. CLAJM. S~VEN TRIAL COUNSEJ., WEjtE INEFFEcTIVE· FOR FAILING TO PRESENT MITIGATING LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY AT TiiE PtiNtSHMEN"r" PHASE OF CARGILL'S CAPITAL TRil\L. . .~~--·:~-=~·. ··:· ..· ·:· ..·..·;..-...... 95· A. Trial Co~~~ F~led to ~nt a Comptehensiv:e Picture of Ca®.lPs Lif~ mstory During the PuniShtnent Phas.e of Her Capital Trial:-:·:·.·:·:··· 9~ B. Cargill Sufte·red From trauma DUring Chil.dbQo 3.. Kimb.eriy's First bivoree Tal<;¢s ~ Signi_ficant Toil on Her ~~9tional Heait:lt .-.-.•-.-..-.--.-..-.............. .-.-.. .-.. .-.-..•-.. ~-.-...... .-...-......-...•. ~-.............................. _....":. 1os· C. Despite Assertions to the ContrarY, Th~re \VQ$ ~ Posi~ve and Comp3$Sion~e S.id~ to Kbnb~ly C~IL:.:•-:·:··~·:··..:·:·.•.-:,•·:·:·•:-:··:-:..:·:~··:..·:~··:·..~:~···:.. ·:-:..•:·..·•· 107 D. Tri.a.l COl:I:Q$el ~sen~ an. Expert Who testified That Cargill Suffeyed Fro.m Bortierline PetSOnal.i~ Disorder Witb0\1~ ln.dqlel1den~ Corroboration of-Environmental Factors· ..........•.·-~·...................~···.·:-:~·-··:~..:·~:~·:··~:..:-·:-:·•··:~···:-:·· 110 v 5 • • E~ ~rial Co\itASel's F(iilure Prejudi~d t~U ........................................ t.i4 CLAIM EIGHT TRIAL cot1Ns·a \VERE INNEFFEctiVE FOR FAILING TO REBUT "mE STATE'S. CAS.E IN AGGRAVATION OUJUNG ~ A:. 'i'n.al Gounsel Has a Duty to Rebut the Prosecution's Case in Favor of tb.:e O.e:atll Penalty ··~······~-······~. . ···-~··.4.1111 t.····-~-···-·-·····-·-····~-·-···········.·-·-·-~-·---·~·-·-·-·ll.····-·-~·-···-·!':·.·.··:.~··-·-·~·-· 115 B. Tria.l Co~l F~led ~o R~b\Jt the. Aggravating Testimony of Severai State Witnesses DUring the Pl.itiishment Pha:s~ of'Trial ...................... i 16 1.. Trial C~l Failed t() Rebut M)ke WeSt's Accom:~t of tbe C~· B.B:ttl:e Re~a~i.hg to Their So:r:t, Dav.i~ -~..:·.•:•·:~·~:·•··:•·•.·····:..·•·••..:····:· ·•·•:·········:~· I i 7 z. So-Qj~ WeSt ~ci4.en:~.·~·:-:•·:·~~:••···~··..·····•·········•·•·.•············.................................. 122 -3. Ir,l.Jl.Jzy to.~ Otfl CLAJM NINE· tRIAL COuNS'l~:L WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAtt..ING TO IMPEACH FO~T G~_R WITII THE TRUE N:A11JRE OF' HOW HIS CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS WERE VACATEP' .~..··:···•·,:···..:-:-·:-·;;•...-...................-....... 132 Forrest Gamer's testimony at the PuniShment Phase of Catgiil's ~ Trial Was Detrilnental and Highi.y Prej~diCi~ ·:·:~..:·:..:·:·...:•..:·:···:•..•:.. ·:··•:·:·•·:o:..:.-. .•...~•..:·:·,.134 IJ,. Trj~ Co~l Failed t9 I,mpe~ Qal:I)e.r with Infon:rtation . Regardlhg How His CriiJ;imal Convictions fot Assault Were Vacated............ 13.6 c. Tri~ Cmmsel 's Failure tQ Ir:npea~h f'oz:rest G~¢r PrejtJdice(J Car'U -S1. -~·-····:·-~~--·······:·.··· .·, . . . . . . . . . . .:.............-....-.-............................................... lltlllllll············ .139 D. ConeIu!ion ................................ _..._............- ................. ,_.......... 140 CL.AlM 'TEN 11UAL COUNSE~ WERE INNE.FFECllVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT to HE.ARSAY·StATEMEN!S OFFERED BY Jll..L LOwE ............ 141 A. Trial Counsel Has a ~ty to Pre~e Er.ror by ~g Proper· Obje_cij_'OI)_ .•.• ·~:~.·-·~·-· ·:·.··-·~·-~· I:_. •.•.• •.··:~ ·-····:-:. ••.• ~:·. ·-·-~~:.o!•.• •.(~· •.• .•:........:-:··:··~~,/.. ~:-··· ·:._..... ··=· ···:·:·•· -~:···..:;. ........ f41 '!'.• ....:•.•. B. Trial Cotm~l Palled tp Objec~ to M~.ltiple H~y St,atemer:tts . . Offered by Jiil Lowe.•.....-..............-..-..-...................-.·................................................-............... 142. 6 • • l. H~yTe·stimQny ~ing LUke GarneJ";,;.•;.:·:o···.··:~···•=•·•··:o••·w •.-... i43 2. H~.~Y Te.~pny Re~di,ng ~ch Robinson ......................_...:•····· 143 G~II was Prejudiced by trial Co.urtsel's Failure to Object to the c.. H~-y Sta~~~ ·~~. ·-•:·~··:·:~·~:·:·•!:·•·:·:·-~:··-·:·:··:·:~.·-···:·.·~:·:·.·:·~·-· ..:·:•.·:·:·.·•:·:··:•~:·.~:...~:··:·:·:~-:.;·~:·:•··~:..:·:.;_.:.;•.. ·~:·.··t··:· 145 CLAIM'ELEVEN CARGILL'·s DEATH SENTENCE WAS A.UrtARitY AND CAPIUCIOUSLY ASSIGNED BASED ON tHE .JURY'S ANSWER TO THE UNCONStrruTIONALLY VAGUE FIRST S.PECIAL I_SSUE:•·.·:•o:·:·:··~:~·-·•:-:•·:·:··:•..-•·•·146 A. Th:e· First Special Issue 'is Unco~tionally Vague aild Fails to Na,rrow the Ciass oft>eath•Eilgible: b.efen~ts·................................................ 148 ' . CLAIM TWELVE CMGIT.L '.S RIGHTs UNDER THE SK_XTH, ijJGI:ITH, ~NO FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO 1lJE UNITED STATES CONStiTUTION' WE~ VIOLAn.o WHEN THE tRIAL COURt WAS PROHIBtrED FROM INSTRUCTlNG 1HE JURY 1HAT A VOTE BY ON'S JURO~ WOULO RESULT IN A LIFE, SENTENCE ····:-:··:•·•:..:•-:-:·•·••·•··••· ............................................~ .......... }51 A. ne Cargill Jucy was initially Unable to Agree on the Flrst Speeial Is~ . . _._.._. _...•.ill:• ·-·-. ·-·-· ·-·-· ··-·····-~-·· ...•. ·-··· .•.•• ·-·-· ••• ·-·. ·-· ~-·- ·-·-·-·-· ·-·-••_._........·~-·-·-· _._.. ·-·-·~:·.•.• ....:-~:·.·:·:· _._·. ·"£'·--~··· :·:• ·:·:·• 1-53 B~ the S-upreme Co\U't. Has Invalidated Jury Instructions· That Place an Undue BUrden on the Seritencer B.efore Finding Mitigating CirCiirnStan<:es C. Texas's 10-12 Senten~i,ng Scheme, Impairs the Ability of a MaJority of J\J.roi'S to Reach a Life Sentertce.................................................... lSS b. Tb.~ 10-l ~- _R,;We .Cor::t~iJ.ltes ·@ ~S.sible Ou.tsi C~AlM THIRTEEN CAAQJU.'S DEATH S_ENTENCE iS UNCONS11TtrtiONAL BECAUSE IT WAS ASSIGNED BASED ON TEXAS'S ARBITRARY SYSTEM OF ADM.INIS-TERING tH;E DEATH PENALTY ........ 158 A. SupteR.l~ Cc;lurt Precedert~ Mandates That the Death PenaltY Not Be Applied Arbitrarity··.:..······""•·'""'"" ......................................................................... 159 vii 7 • • ~ FOURTEEN CARGILL'S DEATH SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED BECAUS~ THE PuNISl(ME;NT PaA,S;E -~Y IN$1RUCTION RESTRICTED nm .EVIDENCE THAT ntE JURY COULD DETI;RMINE WAS l\IIITIGAt.ING ... -.-.................-;~ ......... ~ •••• - ..... •• ~0 ~.- 168. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -....p . . . . . . .: .• • - • • •- • • -· .... • •• •• . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... AJ The T~ S~ and Carsill's Jury Iilstrtl~ons....:.-.......:.:.-.......:._.._.. 169 . B. _t~~s StatUte .. Unconstitutionally Limits th'e· .ea~·gories of Evidence: a Capital Jury M:ay Find Mit_i~g ~d to Wmant a Life Sentence....... t ~·- 1 • -.·: ~ 111' ..... t 1 Ill t Ill 1 ~- "i -~Ill - ~ <11 1 • • e • • Ill •_'." ~- •.': 1 1 II Ill Ill 1 1 t·l_ 1 _1_ I ~_,f.. t·:~ ,··· •·,;, • ~~~~ _,;., .•. ••:Ill • •·• e .•: 111 :•:·I ~: •.•:-. , : . 111 •·• • •·• •:• ..: . . . 1.7() C. . Conclusion .................................._....... fl •••••• _•••••••_••_•••• _._.~-~·-·~·-·····-~··.··-~··.· l7·Z CLAIM FIFtEEN TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFf£CnVE= FOR F~INO TO PRESERVE 1llE RECORD FOR APPEAL.-.•:•..:·•··•·•••·:·•·:·:··•.o.··-:-:.._.:.. •:~ ...:....:~.. ·:·:..~:··173 A Given the Importance. of Preserving IsSUes for ~ and. the Clear Man4ate of'-~e ABA Guideli.nes to Do· So, FS:ilure to ~e the Trial ~~or9 ~i~es Ineff®tive Ass~ce ofCo~sel...... ~:.......:..........:......~ .. ~:.:..:.:.-174 B. Even if Failute to Preserve the Trial ~rd Will ·Not Always AtitOinaticaily Satisfy the Deficient P~on.n_ance Prong of Stricklan4., ih~ DetJei.en~ CQl1dp~ of Cargll's CoW)~ in This Case Warrants a Fit:tdit:J.g of Deficient PerforQ'lallce ••••..•.·.-·-········-····-···············•···········!'············-········~··-··~~-··-· 176 c. Thls Inquiry Mu.st t~ ~Account. the Inherent DifficUlties of £stablishilig PrejUdice Wh.ei1 a "Substantial and -Cnieial Po~on" 9f the Tiiln:$Cript is Mi.~$ing .-....:.- ._.;.- ..:·~·...;......-.-... ·:·:...-.~:-:~··:· •:·: ~---· !:·~·~..··~~-.-..·.:. ••·:·:..... ·:~·· •~•:• ····:·:·•· .~.......-.-.-~·· -.~.-.-............ 177 8 • • TA,.BL~ OF AtmiOlUt~S Federal B#taker v. Woodford, 331 F'.Jd 115 (9th Clr. 2003)...-·-········--···············-·······-·-··-·-·-· 20 Bobby v. Van H.oPic, 558 u.s. 4- (2009)-:. -~:-:·.·.-:·:··:·:•.·.•·...:·:··.·~-··:·.·~:··.··:~··:·.·='·-~·:·:·····:·:·•·•'····:-:·•········15 Cul/eft v. Pi!!M~ter, U..S. _; l11 S. Ct 13-88 (2011) ...:~···-···:~··:·.··:·:··•:··:-:-:· ..:·:··:·:~··:•·•:·:· lS E~ltjJ· v~ Lt.!cey, 469 u.s-.. 387 (1985:).:...................._............_...•._.._.._..,_.._..,_.._."!'·"···-·:··... 18, 73 Harrington v.. Richter, __ .U$. _, l3l S_. Ct. 770 (20 11) .·.:..-• ..:·•:·~·····d·:········· ............ 15, 11 fn re Nqt'l Mortg. Equitjl Corp. Mong. Pool Certificates Sec..Lltig., 120 F.R.D. 68·7 (C. D. Cal. 198:8).:._~--~·~=·:····:····~··:·~··:.:·:..:-:··~:·:·.··:•··~·:~··:·:·.:.-.,.:•.·•:•··~··.·:•.·•·:--~··.···;:. ·~~·.·.•-:··:;:••··<.:····•:·•·-·• 20 Jo~on v. Ala:bq·m.a., 2;56 F.,3d, 1156 (l.lth Cir. 2001) ..............:..•···:...:......._.:•··:·:~·:·:·:··:·:..:·:~ ~0 ~ghnerv. United Stqtes, 373 F.2d 3-26 (Sth Cir. 1967) .........................._ ..~ ....._._ .._.._._20 L_evin v. R_ipp(e Tw.w MUls,l~c.~, 416 f. $\qlp_; 876 (E.D~ P~. 1976).-......................... .-... 20 Miller v..Dretke, 420 F.:3:d 35.6 (Sth Cir. 2005):•.._..........:···:···:•· ..:··•:•··:·:··:·:•··:..·:·:.. •·:.._·:~..:·:··:·:• 16 Padilla v.. Kentuclcjl, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) .._..,.....................~·-··~:......~ ..:-~:~·:·-:-:·•··~··•..:•... ·~:····:·•• ..-... 15 Paynev_, Te''''":Js~e_, ~01 u.s:~ ~0$ (199lh.-..-. .................-.....-....................................45, 48 Por.ter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) ......................-:......_......:........:.:•.·-·-·14, l5, 17, 18 Ri~ v. Qt!artennan; 522 F.3d 517 (5th Cir~ ·2008) .....:~· ..!:··...:~···•:··:··:~···•:-••·•"•· 18, 69,-10 Romp#Ia v. Be4.rd., $.4 5·u.s. 374 (2005) . . _._............... •:•••·:·· •:·.·· ._..:·:• ··:····:·:..:-:..:-:•..:...,:~.....-.:•·-1-5, 16 Smith v. RobbinS, 528 U.S. 259 (2000)..............................._....._...._..,.._.._..._..,_.._..,_.._,. 18, 69 Strickl~v. Wa.s:h.ingttm, 466 p.s. 668 (1984}•.-...................................-..-.-. .-................. passim United States v. Ba.s:hdfn, 20.12 WI.. 1130657 (O.S.C. Apr_. 4,. Z012) (unpublished) .................. •••••••••·••• •• ··-·~· . ····~·-··-·-··-··-~··-·~··.••.4!•.•.•·-~ ·--~--:~.--.·-·:~·-···.·:•. ···:~·:· ~············~·······-···~~~ ... · -~ ••~·-· ........._-._ 2.0 Uni,tedS,~tes v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 912 (lOth Cit. 2009) ............................- ......19, 20 V(rg1.1-v. Dretke, 446 F3d 598 (5th Cir. 2006).:.:.. ···•:•·-·:·:..:-:··-·:-...:-:-.•:•.•.•:-:...~...•:·.••:•.••o:••.••-,.·•·••·:•·•·• 14 W.igg/ns -v. Sm(th, S39 u~s. s-t o(2003) .....:~·····:·····:·········..·· .....................-........_........_..·.~..··passim Williams v, Taylor, 529 U.S. 362.(20.00) .. ;.................................. ~.................. 18, 114· Ylck Wo 'V. Hopk:ms-, 118 U.S_.l56 (l886).:·:·!..:...•:·:~·:-:..:·:o.·.·:·:..:·:•. . ·:·:·•:.i·:·:••:··:•·:·:..:·:·:~o:·:..:•••·•:•·:·:~·:• ... 168 State Alabamcz'v. LeWiS, 36 So~ 3d 72 (Ala. Crun•. App. 2008) ........................~............._.,_. ZO A.m.is v. $tate, 910 S.W.24 511 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1995; pet-. rerci) ...-...-...-.-..-..... 85, 94 Borj~ v. Sk!_te, ·t81 S ..W.2ci:~~ (Tex.. Cthn. App. 1990) ..-.-.._ ....-..... .-............ .-.-.-.-.-...-....:. 75' B_ruwn v. S.tt!WJ, 270 S.W~3'd 564 (Te.Xc. Crlm. App. 200$) .:..:•.·•·:•··:•·:-:..-..-~:··:·: ..:•...··:·:..:·:•··:••·.':· 76 Campbelfv. State, 610 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Criin. App .. l980) .................................:. 76 Cannon v. State, 668 S ..W. 2.d 401 (Tex. Crim.. App_._ 1984) ·:~ ...........~.•.• ;.:~·-•··:ot· ..·!:~·.•··:..-•·•:• 76 C~y. S~a_t~; 488 $.W. _24 110 (Te~-. C.nm:. App. 1972) .•_.:..:•..:-:..:·:·•:-:..:·:·:·•:·~·:·:·...:-:..:·:·.·~:· 87 Coble v. State, 330 S.W..3d 253 (Tex. Crim~App. 2010) ....- ................................ ~ 38 Cortez v. St_ate, 683 S.. W. 2~ 419 (Te~. Criro_. App. 1984) ·:·.·:·:•.·-·:·:~·'f..•~:-:·.·-~:~-:·:·:·:~._.:.~:~··•·:-:•·:-:·.o:~ 75' Crf:!Wford v. State, 412 S. W.-2d 5:7 (Tex. Crim. App.. 1961) ........................·--···"· 87 Dayb ·v: S.'cztt., 31_3 S_. W:-:3d 317 (Te~ Cnm~. App. 201 0);.:..:·:•-:·:•··:·.··:•·:·:•..:•...:·:·~:·:~··-·:..•:-:..:.-..:.- 53 ix 9 • •• /)ef CQtmet; H~ v. State, 273 S.• W.-3:d 68.S (Tex. Ciim.. Ap.p. ZQPS).:·:•·•:•·•:• 142 Dickinson V~ State~ 6'85 s. W.2d 3.20 (Tex.. cmn. App. 1984).....:..:••:0:••:..:~..:·•:·:·.·:·~:•···~·:0•.-:-:··· 7S· Drf!JJgho.n v; Stqle, 831 S-;W.2d 331 (Tex'- Crim. App. 1992) .. ~....................... 89, 93 Drew;v; State, 16 S_. W~Jcl436 (I'e)_{._ Ai'P.·~~o~t~ [14th DiSt_.] 2002) ......:·.··-·-·=~··:··~ 72 bruery v. State, 22.S. s·.W..3d 491 (Tex. Cri.nl.:.: App. 200.7) ~-:~············..·..:····-····:·.···-··.-,:-:··~ i 49 ~nl#in v. $t¢e, 194 ~-W.-:jd 14 (TeJ;C:. -App.--Tyier 2oo6.) .................................... 72 Ex parte Fli:ii'eii, -3-87 S.W.J.d 626 (Tex.. Crim. App. 2012)............._.._._.,_._.:.. _.;.._-.\•.•·:.:·:-!·:•.·•:·:..:·:·:·14 ~ PQ.rte Gon;_a_l~; ~'94. $_. W;:~4 391 (Tel't:• trim. App. 20Q6) .•-.............-....... .1 6, 17, 18 Ex parte Jimen~. 364 S. W3d 866 (t~.. Com•. App_;. 20 l.Z) .-._.:-:.. ·~···:~..·:··•:·:· ..-·.. •:.- pass_im 'Ex parte Miirtmez, 195' s.W~3d 7 f3 crex..-cnm. App ..2006).-.:.-.....-.- ..-..': ..........._..•._.-•. :-:····.·--· 17 Ex parte Martinez, 3~0 S.W.3.d 891 ,('tex. Cnin. App .. 20i 1).......- ................. passim EX parte .Sa_~, 2!}.7 S:-.:W~3d 700 (T~~· C~. App._ 2007)._........··:~.....,.:••.•~:·•· l-8, 69, 70 Faitow· v. St41..e, 943 S. W--:24 895 (Tex-.- Crim:._ AI)i). .I991}:.:..:._..:.:•··:... o:.:•·:·:•·•:·:~·...:.;_-~:·:..:••..:·:~ S~ Fordv. $tate; 919 S.W.2d 107 (tex .. Crim.App. '!996). .......... ~ ................. ~ .._...._.._.. 45, 48 GiidtJis-y. State, 75_3- s··:W-:2d 396 (T~:)!::. Cri.n:t.~ App.: l9S8f...:--····:•••·:O······--··············..-..··•• 84 Gaffneji·v.. Stq.J~, 937 ·S.W-.,4d.540 (Tex..App·;-Texarkana 1996).. ~......._••.._...:.:····:· ..:~ 8'3 s. Gr'!frV~l v_. St4.~e;- 552 W~ci t07 (Tex. Cnm. App. 1976)._.._ .•_.._.._._.._.~_..._-~-·····~ ..'"·~...· 149 Guidry v. State, 9 S.W~3d 133 (Te~. Cri.m . .App. 1999)..;.:..~~··:·:•·•:.;_··:•.•·:-:..:·:••·:·..~··:·:·:··:·:•..:·:..~:-16 Henley v. Stme-, ·s16 S.W.-2d 66- (Tex... Ctim. App. i 978)......................................., 59 !l.ot1k.! v. S.t(!!e, 44 S.. W.:3d 607 (Tex. App;-··Texwkan~ 200 I )'..:..;.:..:..:~---·~·······.:..•..... 72 ffowardv. Sl4.te, 2-39 s_.w:~d 359 (Tex. App.=-""Sai;t ~~o ~007) .•:.-..~:·: .. ·:•.··~:· ...-•. .175 in re Dean, 71 I A.2d.257 (N.H. 1998).................................................. ~ ·~···· ! ... ... ........... 21 J_a_qksgn V.: $.tq_~e_, 7~6 S.W.~d ~17 (Tex. App.•~all~ 1987, pet;. ref d) ..-;.-.-......-...... 8.5 Jose.pl, v. $tQ.re,_3 ~.W.~d 61.7 (Tex. App.-.H:ous_tQn [14th Dist.] 1999)..._.:~ ..~:···•:··:-~ 19 JUteic v. State, .522. S..W..2d 934 (Tex. Cr4n. App. 1975),_,.,..._............ _._.,...~ ..:..... : ..::.149, 159 f<~1J.4.riq_~ V.: SJ4tl#.; 942 ~-W-.2d lZO cr~~-· App... ·Beaumont 1991) ......................... 72. Krey~sigv. Sta~e, 935 s.• w.2d 8.86 (Tex.-. App.-Tex~~ 1996) _.-;.:.:..::·~-:--..:-.• ~:-:•-.-..-•...·:·=~ 12 Mt:n'~a.'ff!i AP.J. Ge.n.. I.ru; v. BlQ.c/qnon, 639 S.W.2d 4S5 (Tex. 198_2) ......., .•. ,_..._._..._._. 19 Mathew31i. State~ 635 S.W..2&532 (Tex. Ctim..App. 1982).._..,.._.._~·-··· .....~·-~·-·..... ~:..:.:.1.74- Met!.if!4 v. St4_tf#, 2004 WL 764444, .6 Ct~ App.-TeXarkana 2004) .•-..... .-........-.. 175 Meza V·State, 206 .S.W.3.d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. ·2006) ........_....... ~ ...................._, .....~ 18 M#le_r..£1 v.: S!P:f.~, 1a·~- s. W:._Zd 894 (Tex. Cii~:· App. l_990) ·:·:·•:····--:·~···•.-..-.... .-.-....... 46, 48. Mo~avi v. $(ate, 711 S~W.2d 53 (Tex:. Crim. App~ i 986) .;..._... :~"-'·"-':··~-· .. :~..._.:..•:·:..:·:... 174- Mose/y \1•.State, 9'8-3 S.W.2d ·249 (Tex. Cri.nl:._.App. 1998) ..;~·:..::· .. ·:·:•....:~--···:~ ..····:•·••..4~, 48 Oakley v. State, 68 S.W-.2d 204 (Tex. Cnm. App. i 934) ................ _. ...................... 85' Pardeev;.St4tl4.').fJ12 WL_35164-8_5 (Te~. App~,.....;T~~-a.20.1~, ~· ~e 10 • • Steln ~- Stt:Jtti; 492 S.W.2d 548 (tex..Crim.App. i9t3) .............._•..._..._•...:...~:-:···:···:·:•·-·:· 8.~ Stunliien- v. State, 182 S. W.2d 7.20 ('teX:. Criin. App. 1944) .•:..:..);···-··~·-'··•:..···•:••.. •·• ·:· ..·•·:· 94 Tangzp!I!J v. S.t.a_te, 41 -$.-W•:3d 6~3 (Tex-. App.-Corpus Chtisti20.0i). ................ 174 Thompson v. State, 9 S. W~3d 808 (Tex.. Crim.. App. 1-999) ·.·:~~·:·:...~·._...,:...·:·'·'·:··-·:··_.·:·:· pas$i~ Wa_ldrl.p v. Head, S32 s·.E.2d 380 (Ga. 2000) ...•.... ,:...··f.~·-··:.. ···:~.-..·:·•·•:•·•·•••····,.·........-•. .-....... 21 West v. So/ito, ·S6J S:.W-.2d 240 (Te~:· t 978) ·:··•:... .-.-...-............................................ ,.. 19 StatUtes Tex._ Cod~ CrlJD..•. Pro<:;.:.Art. 371071 § 2(b)( I) .•.....•:....;...._...:•..•_.•_.:··•:·:·•:·:..-.:·:··:·:···:·:··•:·:···:•··:·:~· 147 Tex. Code-Crlm. Proc. Art. 37.071 § 2(b)-(e) ....................._....._.........•.·.··~-··-··~....·.·~-··....·:· 149 Tex. C.od~ Crin;l. Proc. a,rt_. 37.()71, § ~(1l)(t) -:·:··-··•=···•:{.. •·:·:·····:~····:..···:o· .. •·••·•·····..·••••• .... lS-2 T~x.. Code CriJn.. Prac:.-•art. 37.071, § 2(b)(l)-(2), (eX 1) ;.:• ..:•··~:·•·:·:..:·:··"-""~:··•·:•-,:·:•·•• .. :·:•· 151 tex. Code Crim.. Proc: •. art.. 3:7.011, § 2(b)(l), (e)( I) .................~ ................. ·.;.._........ !~=··:··~:·.···~:· 169 Te~:· C~ Cri.t.n. Proc!.-~:- 37 . 071, § 2(d){2), (f)(2) .. .-..-.- ..-..-..-•. -.- ..-............ ;... ~............ 1:52 . Tex. Code·Crliii. Ptoc. art 37.071, § 2(f)(4).:.-..:. ;.•,_._ ..:·:•··:·:··:·:•··:·:··•:····:.. ·:·:···:.-··:·:· .. -:· ..:·-· 1()9, 172 Tex. Code Crhn... Proc._ a;rt.. 3.7,071, § 2(g).~:·•··:·:..:..·.:.. ··ii·•..:••····..···:•..:..·.:.:.. •:·_ ....-...~·-·····:···-·-···:~· 152 T~~:-. CQde Cr~:-. Prec.-, § 2(a)(l).-•.-.-,;,.-.. -.- ................... ~ ............................................ l5-2 TeX. Criril. Pro.~ .art. 37.011 § 2(h)...~···~·:··•:·...:·~·:·~:·:··~:·:'!·~·:·.·-·:•.·:··:·~·-·-··:·.··:i·.·:··-~··:·-.~-·:··.·:·•.·:·:-: ..:-·:~·····:.:•·:.--:~· 1·74 Tex .. R. EVid.-40 1,..••.••.•.••.•·;'l!~.··.~·-·.•·.··-~.••.••.•:••.•.•i:·•~·:-:·•··1t:••··:·:·•··:•····-··•······· .....-•••:••-•.-... -._••-•• .- ••:•.•••~·-··•:'! .. :·~~··· 71 Tc;x:.- R. Ev.ld. 403 ..... .-.-..-.••...•....•....•.........~ ........._.........- ................................................... 71 ~--~ EVIP.•. 503 ·=·:··:·:·:·'!'.•:·.··~·:..:-:·:··!···.·:·:•·.•:•.·-·~·~··-·~··-·~~·---:••-·-·.··.··-·····.·(·:··:•·:·.···~:·.·.·-·:~·;':••:·····~:······:·····:~·····..;•.-•• -.-••-. 19 T~ .R.. Evid. 611 (CJ.) .•.· -:··:·:·~ •·:··:···:·:· •·.·•:·•··~·--···-·····-· .-._.-. •.·:·· .-_._•··:~· ·~·-·.·~·-··:·:···~---··:··•-·:··~:~· ·:·:···.·=···~=~--~-:-. ··~:·:~ .. .53. Tex. R. Evld. 7.02 ........................................-............- ..........................._..........."'..... ~ ~ ~ SS !' ••.•• ••. ••• •• Tex. ~ EVict 80 l(a)(2).:._·.. :•~:·•:·~·.·~··.··!:··:-~·-·:·~~·~:··:·~~:-·:···:·~····· ..······:·········:-:·······························•················· .. ··· 145 . Texas RUle of Evid~ce 404(b) ··~:···:---·~:._ .._._ .._-.:·:··-·~----~·~···=·:·-~=--··~=· ..:·:~ . :·:·•~:•...:·:··:·:···:·~··:·:···:·:·:·...~·~···.·····"i 144 Other·Authorli:ies ABA ·Deaih ·Penalty Due Prece~ Review Project; Evaluating Fairness- and Accuracy in State tJeaih Peniilry Syitemsi the· texaa Ctipttiil .Puni$hme.nt Asse$ament Report, at viH, xxxix: (September 20l3).:.....,:..··:~ ...·!:··:··;.:··..:~····:~···..·.. .-•••• 147 ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Petfotmailce of Defense Counsel i'n DeQt,h P~n_IJ].cy·C~s 2003, 31_ HOt$i'RA L.. ~-~ 91~ (:~003) ·:•·:•·:~·:•··:~;.-.-..... 16-; 17-, 21 ABA Standa_rds.for· Cri.TJJi11!11J~tjce (3d e4. 1993 )...:...:._..:·:~·,··-··~~·····~-:··:·-··•:·:; ..:.. ·•:-:~·· p8$si_m · ABA Standards for Cr{m.inal Justice; Prost~tjo"' FtP~C#.()11 (3.4 ed. · 1993) (S~.~4 l:~.s~~~)~·····.·)l!····-·:······.:.~·····;.:·•·····························•·•·············•·············•·········. ··-·····-···76 ABA S~dirtg Com:tn:; 011 E~cs &.: Prof! Respon5ibilizy, For;mal Op_it;rl~ 1.()..456 (20 10)..................................4!•.•·········-.. ·-·-··-··-·-·•.••.":• "·-·'·"····~··.••.••.-............·.·~.··-·--:-:•-.•,;•:•.•.••:·:····:.·····::.-··· 2.1 Xl . 11- • • J\d·am.· Gersnowit,z, StQ(e¥ii<;Je C!ipitai Punishm~t: The CC$e For ~Ominaflng Ccm.!Ji(e~· R.9!f! _in the Death Penalty, http·:Jtworks..bep~~~-c;Qm/ adam_gershoWitz/5'{2009) i.• :·:~..-.. ~:.~:-:·;:·:·:··~:~····.···:·:•·•:•••·:•····; •·:•; ....................................--.:.. 163. c·h#.~.n.a StUdebaker & Steven Penrod, Pr~tr.ial Publicity: The Me4.ig; ~ L,qw.,_ and Co~ ~f#, .3 PsycboJ.Pub.Pol'y & L!. 428 (1997)~.-........................... 65, 68 . . . pher Slobo Chrlstcf · Cap . gm, ~- ita/ . Punishment.. .. dnd .. - Dan·· . .:g.erousness . -·· . -.. '. .in. MENTAL. . pts<)RDER. AND CruMlNAL i..Aw·:, REsPONSmnnv AND COMJI:EnN.c~ I 19 (Ro~ ;F .. S~chQpp et·'al. eds.,. 2009.) ·:·:•.·.·:·:·:-;.:~·.-:·:;:·:·:·:•.·:·:·:-:·····x········ ..·••·•••••••·..........................- ......... 149 DaVi4Sa.1,4~ ~-al;o, Race and ProportiQna/ity SinpeMcCle.~ey·v. l{~p (!987): /)i.ff.en?zt Actots with Mixed Strategie~ of /NfiU:zl m,4 AV.oii/4.1JC~, .39 CoUJM. :HlJM. RTS . L:. R.E\' . 1'4~ (2007) •:•:•.•:~··:~·:···:·:.:••:·~~-·-i:·:•(•:•~·.•.•:~ ..:~··r·~·:~·•:••·~·~••n•••···•n••u••••••••••••••••• 165' E:llen Bnckmaii, et. al., How .litroi' liitemet Use Has Changed the Ame.rJcg, Jury X.r.lf!J. l Jo~ of'C.outt l@ova(ion 287 (2008) ....-.•.·•.~............................................... ! .. 6.8 Gl$S¢ri ~ al.·; Possibility o/Di!¢.h· $etl.~~f!Pe f!_as f)fvergent Effect on Vet.diCtsfot B~k and .White Defendants 5-6 (June 24, 2009).•:.-:.."i··:·:·:~·..--•:••·:-:.o:·:~·:·:•.-·.•:•.···:~···•:·:·•·:.. •:• 167 ls.~c '()'~~' Ch~s.mg those Who Will Die:~- The Effect of Ractt, Gender, and Law in P.rose.cuto.ria/ 1Jecls.i:P.n to Sef!~ (h.e ~th Pe_nal_ty (n Durh¢n Co'fijlty,_ North Carolina, i-5 Mica,LRACE & 4 1"35 (2009)...~: ..:•.·:·:•·:~·:-c..:-:··:o:.. o:•···:·:..:·:~·:·:··.o:·:·:·;:·:••.•:•••.•:..:•· 165 Jeffrey ~l)mei~t\ .Aggravating and Mitigatlhg Factors: The Paradox ofT04ay's Atbitl"l.ary and Mandatory_ap · C' .. ttal Pun&hment ........ Scheme ·-····'·6 WM. . .&. MARY . .. BitL RTS. i . .j4S· (199'8) •.•. •.• . . . . . . ~~'!·.· ··~· ·-··~~-.~·:-:••.~!! ...:-:,••:··:-=······· ···~·. ·• .......~. ···············:· ···:·.··· .•.•-: •.•.•.'!' ·-·-··.•.1.• ·:·:· 1(;3• !'... •.•" J~~fer L.~ EJ.;Jet:l;l_~c(t, ~taL, Lookjng Deathwotti;y, 17 P.svcH. Sci. 38:3 (2006) ~- 167 Jules Epstein, ..Death-W.ort.liin.~s t11fli Pr()Sec¢otit# ~qr~iion in CtgJital Case C~g, 1"9 ilMPtE PoL. -&·crv~.Rn. L. REv. 38.9 (2010)........................... ~. l€i3 l(atb,~~~ jl~~~' ~t ·aJ,-. P[J#e Matters (MQs.t)~· An EmpiricqJ Study :of .Proseeu(orial Deci$ion-Ma.king in /Jeg(h-Eli'gible ~e.s, ·Sl ~; L. REv. 305 (20:09). :•·~--:~···· :-:···· -~ ..... .-....... ~······ •. .-:. ...... ·-·~· ........................ ~ .... I ••• II ......... ••• •••.1. •.•.• "-'-"·" •.·~··.•:• .•.•:.:-~-~~-:-~--~: 16·3 Laura. S. Guy, et a}., Asa.es.sing Rislc· of Viotenee Using $trl!ctw"ed Pro/easlonal J.'!!Jgf!.l.en.t Ch!.id.eJin~·;J. fQ~~IG PSYCiiQI,.•. P,R,Ac., Ma:y 201-2 ...................~·····~ 150. Mi_cl-mel Ca~a,n.Q, ~ng ap_4 ~g t;b~· R~rd .- Objections, 6 Am. J'lit. Tri.als 60S ( l967) •X•.•:•• .;.........-••:·.··········:•....•.•••:•.".o.•.••.•.~•!:•:•·-····•:.; ••:.:..;.:.:••:.:••:·:····-··~~·-:·:·-:·:•-:·:.-·:·:.-..-:-.:•:··:·:~··:·:·•·:• r74 Michael L.. Ra:d~Iet &. James W. MarqU:art, AJs~Sing Nond!J_ngerousness br¢.i!Jg Pen/ilty Phaies- ofCapital Trials, 54 ALa~.L.. R.Ev .. 845 ( 1989-fg90)................. 150 N. Kerr, Severity of Pres.crthe4 Pe"!Z.Ity (Did .Uoc/f Jurors·· Verdicts, . .36 J. PE~.SONALrtv ~Sot-. PsYcH._. l.4)l (i97SJ.:.;_.:·:..:·:··•.·:·~;·:..··:·~·:·.··:·:··:~.. .-......-................... t67 NJ. Death Penalty Study Comm., New Jets.~ Death Penalty C()mm~ston &epo.rt 43 (ZOO!) ··~··~-:. . •·:i.!•:·~· ~~-:...~:~·.•:1. -~~-~~-:-:•••:-..• ·.·.-·:·.·-•:-: .:. :•.·-·-~·-·:I.•:-.~>·:i.•. ·~·:· ·:·:.-:l_(•~t! •.-~-·~~·:1~1 •:-: I-:·~:~··:···~ 1.·.~:11!· •.• ···:• .,·, ..... ,., ••-••·•• •.• 164 Norbert t.. Kerr et al"! On iii# Effectjveness of Voit Dire in Criminal Caaea with PreJili#ciai /'r~trial Pu/j.liqity~· 4_n Empir'i~al S4/.dy, 40 AM:. tJ. L. REV~ 665 ( 1991 )................ ••.• ..............,........... '·'''·'·'·"·'·" '·''·'·'1.•.•.·.··:~··:~·:·.·· .,:;-...:~· ·:··:~····.-;· ... ·~····:···· .............. ····:· ......... "67 xrr 12 • • Scol:t Phill.i~, Continued Racial iMparities iii- the Cq.pital of Capital Puiiishine.nt.: so The_ R~~.l Er~, Hous_. L_. REv. 131 (20t2) ················-··--·~·-·-·············166' Scott Phillips; Racilil Disparities in th!1 Ct!pi(a_l qf Cqpi,al f'wlishmem, .45 Hous. ~. ~\l. 807 (~008) ......:-:·····:~····~~····~·····~..............-.~-........ -....-...._..._._.. _ ...~.·-··-•.••.·.--·~:·~··:·:~-!'~:···~·:••.•:·:~·!'~···:~ 166 . .Sh~ Di~ond & N¢il Vi~, Jury .Room Ruminations on Forbidden Topi~, 87 Va.L.R.ev. 1857 · (2.·oo 1) ........._..•........:·~···:··.·:-;:-~:-.-:·:~-:-·:~··:-:-:.;,:.:--;:.-:.·-······:•················...........................68 Sh.ari Di~n4,. Beyoill/ Fantasy and .Nightmare:· A PO.rlltl.it of the Jury, 54 Buff:.L·.Rev. 717 (2()06) •···:·:···:•-·:·:·-••......................................""'·"'·"~--.-,.··.--:·:--.··=~··..:~·····:~····••···· 68 State Bar of Texas, Guidelines and S~d,ards fw·T~ CaP.i~ Counsel (Aprit 2i, 2006)~:-·:•·:·:·:·~···) ····:.:····:~····· ............ ··········ii············· .............................._._.. _,._.. ·-· ··-·~···---··~=··•!'. :·--·:-:••.• l6, z1 i Steven Go.ode, ~ al._, Texas Pr~tice Serle~: Courtrooljl Ha~llbook on Texm EYide~e § 6.11 CIJ'lt•. l-2 (20'1·2).... -~·-··· .:....:..:•.·-•··~·· ..!'_·········~-·-...~·:• ·~):•·:·:· ~:-:~·:.:·:·~:·~···~···!~····-··········.. -...... 53 Tex·; Dep't Crim·. JUst., Offenders on DedthRo>tli .......................·.········.~·..:·.-.. :-:~·-·.·:·:t·:-:-:-:·-·:·:·:-:•.· 162 Willi3nl J. B.owers & Wan$ D~ Fogl.i~ S#(i Singularly Agonizing:. T..aW's Failure to ff!!'g, .Ar.b#r~riness from Capit_~l S¢.~ing, 39 CI_UM. L. ·BULL. 51 (2003) ...................................... ·················-·· .......... ••.• •••• ••.•.•!'.•.•.•. -~---·.······ ···~:-:.. !':·:· ~:~·~:-:-. ·:-:·~·=··.·~· -~:-: •·•:.:··-·~·-·~·-·· ...... 1-56 xiij 13 • • APPUCATION FOR A 'WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS This is a Capital Case Cherey Walker d.led from Sudden UneXpected Death in Epilepsy ("SUDEP"). Howev~, the· jUry s_itti.ng il) j~dpu~nt Q{ ~~rJy Dianne Cargill . . ("CqfU") n~v~ h~ spedfic evi·~~ ~g SUJ)~P ~ },tpw W~k~ was ~ pa:rtjcular· ri• fc)r··jt. A$ a ~lt, C_argill was ~~gfully COJlyi~ of ~Pi.u.J.l iniltd~ and .S;eliten~ to death_. SUDEP is· ~ very ~ ~~ of c;t-.b wt_Uch tak~ tho~&J:ld.s Qf iives ~b , yw. I~ i:s· tbe $Ubject of e~tmSive· ·st.u4;Y oo,d cl_lnj_~ re~b. Yet m~~d Qf pre$~thlg ·ap. ~~ tQ the Jtlr)' tQ. explain What SUDEP is and whY i~ was ~e likely ~\lSe ofWa~$ de~ trial CO)lltSeJ a~c~ tbe ~any of the Sta~'$ general n@I'()logi~, who 4id not ·fuily lilider$ta'nd SUDEP and its implicatiQnS, and ~~ that W~~e:r;- d_i<;l ·not di~ ftom th.~ con:d:.ition.. Thi_s faiJure ~llQWed tlte- S~te .· to ~tt4lgly ~.isl ~l C~ll':s ~O:~Y ~ W~~·djed foll_owing a ~i-~ was i.iilplaUs.lble, rid1c\llous, ar:t4 .p.ndy 4.lse. Ha4 th~ jury beEm, presep.t_ed evi_t;J~ce ~a' Wa)J~~ W3$, i:g, (~~.viet~~(,)( SUl)E.P, Ca,rgijl wo~ld not hav-e been c<>nvi~ of ~api~ murd_er and wo.uld n(>l fi.n.ci b~rself tod4y langp_i$hing on death row~ This Court mu.st reverse· Cargill's ~pital convicP~n. ~-e yery least, ~l 14 • • P~.OC.g>~ QlST(>I~Y .. C~ll i.s CQt:ltit)ed und~r ~ ~t:ttence ofd~!b PllfSWll.ll to the j'!.ld~ent oft;he 241 st District Court, Sniith. County, Te::w, case: nUm.ber .241~ 151.()..1 o., which was re~ered ~d ent~d o~ J~e 1,,2012-. (S' CR:at 9a2~86; 69 RR~t 132-.-)'J A. Trial. Court. Proctedmgs on" Jui..~· .3.0 . .• 2010 . , H:dnorable . . -· iack - · · - Jt.. ' of Sk. eeJ1 ..e 241 $"t. DistriCt - .:loll . Co·.,.... """·~ signed a Certificate of Maglstrate charging Ca:rgfU With the offense of capital murder. (CR at 14.~) AlSo on JUly 3(), 2010, the court appointed Jeff Haas and Brett ~son to represent:Cqiil on the cb.atae·With an ®-indict!!d ca)Jse number,. (CR.at 1·2.) em. OctAber 21~ 2010, $ gnmd. jury indic:t;men_t. VIS$ tiled charging Cargill Wi);h the capital mutder of'Chel'l'\Y Walker by means tinkna.Wn, coniin:itted during ~~offense pfr.e:tal·iation. (CR ~ &.-7.) On .J1,111e 16, 1011, Cargill was ~gned ~:4 e.nt~ ~ pJ~ of n:ot guilty. (2· RR at·4-8.. ) On July Q·, 20ll, Smith County I)i~ct AttQi'.rl.tD' ~tt 8i)1gham tile_d the Stat¢' s Ele¢tion to S.eek the Death P~~I.ty. {~_& al. 36!.) On Fe_b.ru_;;rr:y 29, 2012, ~ court denied Cargitrs MQtion to ~h and ~c·~~!l~ ~ tb¢ Fo~ oflt.t4ictn1.en~. (7 AA ~ 44.-4.Q.) Voir dire commenced q~ M~b 2,2; 20 1_~, ~~ CQ~l!Jd_~ QlJ f\pr.il 2:5, 20 l.~:. (9 RR at 25·.:4.() RR at l"S~) The· gJ,iiltfmnocence ph~e of Cargiii's· trial be~ on M~y 7, 20 1_2:.:. Ail~ tbe re:~ding of the ·indi'c:trnen~ Cargill pled n·ot guilty. The State gave its opening .statemc=rtt ili)Q th~ d~f~n,se res~r\iec:}. tb.e ti~t tO t_nake an openlrig statement., (42 AA at 5·3-1 04.) The State: b~gan its case.,.ir:t~hief$e ~~-e clay. (42 RRat 109.) 1 A_ll re_fenmces to "CR" are to the· Clerk's Record filed, on June 18, 201.2:. All references· to "RR" ate tO the Reparter'.s Recoftl filed o~ I;>eeem.he.t 15, ~0 J·2.:~ 2. 15 • •• Th~ S~e te$i~d i~ ~on May l·S·, 201.2-. (51 RR. 136.) On ~y 16; 2012, ~e d~fen.~:$$Ve an opening sm.,tem.en~ :m4 presen~ i_ts·case. (53 RR a.t 8.;.54 RR. at ..162.) on May the- defense rested and the State ~led tWo 17, .201-2, w.itn.~-~s i~ reb-y~J:. ($~ RR -~ 7..53.•) B. State Ap~Uate Proceed.ia.p On May 31, 20 12·, the co~ a~inted Douglas· PSJ"ks to represent Cargill for putposes of the direct .appeal. (~at 9.87, 991.) On December 2, 2013, Cargill fil~d h~ o~_b.lg ~~I.m.,t~ bri~f, l(imb~rly Carg{ll v. The: State of Texas·, with call$e nurotJe.r j\.p-7(;,,819 in tbe Te"~ Cc;»Jm of Ctitni:nal Appeal$ ("CCA")_. The State filed atS reSpOnse on April 7~·2014. On May 9, 2014, o~ ~~t W8$ waived by Mr· Parks. A deCision ·by the CCA ts cuttently pending. C... State . .. . ... Proceedi . . .... Habeas· · . . .ngs Oil Jl:me 16, 20ti, tliis coUrt. appointed the Office of Capital Writs to re~e.r:at Cargi.ll "in her p~-~oQvi¢ti(>n n~@$ li.tl~on, pQJ's\u,lnt to CQd~ Qf Criminal Proced·ure Article 11.071 .. (CR at 992.) This Application follows. 16 • • u. STATEMENTOFFACfS A. Gll:ilt Ph.• P..-~~tj~~ ·by ~e S~te The State's gUilt ph~ case-iii-chief e ~ly June 2010 Cargill's roungest sQtl LUke was alsort:mloved from C.argill's··care. (49 RR 41; 1. 04J W~P.t .SJJPPort ~ Lu,ke's fa;ther F~t ~~. C'P"giU 's mother ~h.,el Wil_$or:t so~$h~ custody of Luke. A h~g ~as set on June 23.• 201 O, fo.r a detemiination ofLuke's c~.stody. (49 RR a..t 104:..,09.) Car&iil wa.s dls~M$1rt. ~~ Ul~ prospect oflQsing cu.S.tody ofhe.r .fo\U1b ch(ld, and Mked :fiier,tds and a~quaintances to Write letters to the coUrt and/or·testfty on her behalf;. (43 RR at 17<>-72; .so R.R a:t 143--6.0.) June 18,·.2010 on Friday, June 18, 2010, Cargill work~:d over twe_lve-ho.nt:s as ~ l.ir;ensed vocational n1ii'Se ·at-a ho!lpital in Athens, Texas. She started her shift at 6~45 a.m. and ~n4~ it ·~l7:.30 p,m... ~spite it being agaii\S• h0$pital policy, thitit,aghoti~ ~ day Cargill made mUltiple phone calls. and sent teXt me5sage8 to varioU.s people, inci.:.d.i~g W1.1.lk.er. (43 RR, at 119•29; 43 RR at 20l:...02; 46 RR a~ 88-97~· 49 RR ~t 1i 9-25; 50 RR.. at 115-16.) Cargl.JI was eii;J.otjonal and upset that moriling and also 4 17 • • m~~ ~ ph911~ ~.aUs t9 tbe ·clinic 1J.1AA~$~ a~ Luke'$ ~i~ci!m'S ()ffice. (43 R.R -~t- 30-3~.) ArQ~4 10:_00 a_.IIL, W~~-w~ ~e_d_ Wi~ ~-S~~ tQ t_e~9fy at th~ J11ge 2:3· a.J:$t()Q.y b.e~a~ (~~ ~at 40-46,;) Wa.Uc;er c_all~ (;_qUI wh_o t9.ld Wa,l_lc~ ~he did not hav~ to testify at tl'te hearing ~d ofJ"ered to ~de Walker ~til th~ ~~ pas_se4. c;argl_n tol~ Walk~ tb.a~ sh.e (~11) would l~se her ~.ild if th~ coijrt le:arned she had a mentally retarded babysitter. (44- AA -at 53-58.) Wii~ler -was with Walker •-the ~~ sl;l_e received tlte·s~bpoe~,t~ ~d spoke twice wi$ Cargi)_I 011 the phone_. Cargill also told Wheeler that Walker did no.t have t~ go to court and other people just wanted to confuse- 'walker and make her look bad or Incompetent on the st,a;rul. (# .M at 5~1.) Walker and Wheeler dis.cuss.ed the subpo.ena with a supervisor from the cotrimmnty program where· Waiker received serv!ces. (4.4 RR at 62--63.) Cargill calle.d a friend and exp~ hoW upset she was that Walker--was SUbp~ to teSfify·at the c'ustody hearing-•. (43 RR-at 1-35-3.6.) . W~_er w«mt to tb.~ be~~ p~or·to ~ve her h:air d~me aro:l)nd noon.~ (43 RR. at 107.) ~ h~ ~ l:lome; W~~ tall.te.d several times 1:0 both Wheeler and Whee.let's superviSor· and expressed her z:~ervousness ~d ~~ a~ rece.ivlt)g tb~· sl)bpoerta. (44 RR at 65'..66; 45 RR at 28-29.) At about 8:00 p.,n:1_,., WaJker ~J'(Jke to Wheeler and said Cargill was coming ovet to take Walker to dinner.. Walker also sai 18 • • :~~~':-~9~~d,Jun~-~O._.l0~0. Atolmcf7:.30 ~m, o"-J~ 19, C~il.l spoke to •iJ,e)ghbor ~4 sajd she~ going to get. her cat washed. (43 RR. at 167.) Early that afternoon," Cargill went tO the Whitehouse Police Department and asked how· bu.sy they had been that day. ~fi ai® aSked if'thei'e was any n~s about her dog that l1ad been missing fot months. (49 RR at 9i•93.) L.ater t}:lat t:~ight Cargill was $een at the drlve-thnl of a B.urger Wheeler c·alled Walker several tj_m~.s over~ week~nd b\lt d14 not get an answer; (44 RR at 69-:'70.) 1l:im evenipg, Walker'·s s~ep-mother s~w a t~levised 11ews s~9ry that a body matching the descnpt.i'on of Walket had been fou:nd and cailed the number ptovidecJ. (5() AA ~~ 9-.) Waiker's st~~Il).o~~r tpJ.4 a:t~r:borili~s tb~~ sh~ h.a.4 gone to Walker's apart.meJ)~- ~~- d~y ~xpe-cting to find that Walke~ suffered a seim('e. (5.0 RR a~ 20-24.) 6 19 • • .The Day.s.:r.ollowiag Walker.'s.Death. On Jl,U,le. ~-7:' 2'()1 0, C.&r$ill Wa$ $tpJ)ped by PQllee come tc;> a fc)r ti#lute to complete ~op at a ~p sign. (49 RR.at.38.) Pumiarit to.a s·e·a:rch warrant, Catgill's car· was searched and lmpeunde4. (49 RR at. 78.) }be car. was processed by crlme .s®ne techniCians. and a single- bJ·ack hair was teecivered from the passenger side headrest. (48 RR. at 66.) the ·hair was subm1tted for mitochon~al test:iz:tg. WQJlc.¢1. ~y.14. IJ,ot. be exclUded as th~ contilbutor of tJ'l.e hajr~ (49 ~ ·• l ~~Q.) .AdditiOilally,. the coffee creamer container found with Walk_er's body on th~ nu:m. road was submitted for DNA ~eStipg. 'Ii:t~ DNA proijle o,t$in_e4 w~ (ron:! ~ mixtlU'e of two different ihdlVidu.als. Waiker was exelude.
2 Cargill ·volinita:riiy ~b~t~~4 to i!, blJc® swab t~ oil J-une 28, 2010. (48 RR at 106,) 7 20 • • accounts. (50 RR at '218•2'0.) Cargill's fii~nd wa~ ~ti~.ately c~~ed with a feiony c;h~e ofta:mperlrt:g with evidence.. (,50 RR at 133.) B. Guilt:Phase Pt$.ntation by the Defense Cargill teStified In her oWil defe~. C~l testified tha.t WaUc~r ballysa,t somewhat ~giilatly for her. son L..~ apd s.he· wa~ the oil~ wh9 provi4ed CPS witi;J. Wa,l~¢r's i!$e ·~d cori~~ ~.fcmpat,ion. (~3 AA ~ 15-70.). C~ a~J,u:low~~c:iged that she knew Walker was s·u}Jpo~ 19 ~fY at tl)e June Z3 h~g because Walker ~led her immediately after ~~v~ th~ ~bpo~ C.~U to~4 Wallter she did iiot have tO teStifY and she would take Walk~ to ~~r ~ they could . disc·iJSs· the matter. Cargill aiso tOld ·walker that she would U1lk to tt~ ~ey an~ "'fi~ i.t" ·so that Waij{~ did not have to t~fy. (53 RR at 2l-24.) Cargill did not di8pute the numb:r of calls she made on June 18. She was. attempting tO get irt.fonna,tion that her attorney needed.(~r the u}'CQm~ beating. (53 ~ a~ 23-26.) C~ll finished her work shift. at. approximately 7:30 . p.m., arnving at W~_ket's apart;nleil~ ~approximately 8:l0 p.m} Cargill picked lip Walker and tb.ey cJ.rove to C~lP$ home in Whjt!ehou~, ~ving aroWld 8:45 p.m. Cargill wan~ to ~P 'by her· ho.use because She. tholl:ght her friend William Selmon might be there ~owing the l_awl).- CargUl ~ted Sel¢on ~o ~~fy ·~~ the Jw,;e 2:3 b.~¥ and believed be w.oul(f have a ~~ ti:rne telling her "no" if .she a:sk.ed hUn in person. Cargill p·ufled into her driveway, in th~ c~, and went le~ving Wal,ket il\Side tl:i~ l)Q~e to use the res.trQom and plug h~ cellular ph.on,e it:t'o a ch.~~ Walk~ did ~t ~eto1,1t of~e c~~. (53 R:R, ~ 27-36.) Leaving her phone at home m otrl~.r to chatge it, Cargill drove Walker tO Posadas C~.f~ i.IJ. TYl.et, s.topping along C~ll.l got~ wenn11gticket a~· about 8:00p.m. ·for sp~eding as she drove 3 through Chat).(ilet, ·which was on the way froll) ~e hospi~l to WaJ.~ey'·s -~cnt.~ (53 RR. ~t 30;: 45· RR ~~ 40-54.) 8 21 • • the way for ~~U ~o .g~t g~ ·a)l_d ¢aSh far dinner.4 The two women ·ate dinner tQg~~ ~.d C!iJ'8ill pro¢~~ ij) drive Wall~er ho~ne. (53 RR a~· 3&;3'9.) Whi1e in the~; Walker-~ked Cargill to drive h¢t·ic> a IQC_al 'bar·attd becaine ~~ wh$. C.a®.U re&~. (53 RR EJ~ lJS-36:.) While stopped at a red light"in a left~hand only tum lane, Walker began to have a seiZUre. Traffic· was o~coml.ng so Cargill had te wa1t in order to tum.. As she was ~i.zin:g, WaJker· repeatedly hea4 on tb~ gla:ss of the· passenger $UU~:k .b;er side window. B~ on her medlca1 training; Cargill kneW the most importailt thing to do (b;uing a. s.eizure was to protect the head of the person having the seiZi:ite•. (53 RR at 41-42.) Cargill drove the few blocks to Walk¢r's ~&!lit co~pleX,.~Stop~ the c:ar and eXited ~ driver'.s sid~ door, and ran to open the pmisenget dOOr. Waiker fell to the gro:und, .striking her head. The se-iZUre stopped witlilii a. few secondS of WaU~~ bitting~ gJ;U~c;i. C~ll couJd not call9U _be.Qu:se· bet phone w.a,s ~till at home in the charger. Cargill yelled. for help and attempted tO help Walker by performing CPR and qiouth to mouth resusci~~o.n. Th¢re was ~o Qne else ~. or ~und th~ apartment c:omplex. (53 RR at 42-47.) Cargill pulied Walker back into the paSseiiger side of the cat in order to drjve her tQ the hospital whi~h was a few blocks away. As she was driVing to tbe hC)Spital Cargill realiz~ Wa.ll~er· h~d ~ ~pq~s.ive (Qr oyer ten minutes and was clearly dead. Cargill panicked, and wider the n:H.$~~1) ~iiJ.ptession that Waiker striking her head on the· groUil.El m_ight have ca~ h~ d~th, d.i4 I)Ot ~~ W~ker :tP tb~ b.~sp~al. It:tste.~d, C~ll drove aroun 4 Cargill'$ rep~n.tation that: she stopped for· cash was corroborated by bank records that showed she Withdrew $3$ frorn }:ler ~~CQum ~t 9:16 p.m. ·on tbe night ofJ~c: 18~ (47 RR at 14-lS.) · 9 22 • • Q~t_ Q.f bet ¢ir o~t9 tJte $f0®4- C8!$iU -us.~ ligh~ fluid tp bum Walke_r's sl;ii!t becaiise she knew her DNA i'n the form of tears; sweat, and saliva, would he- p~t on w~~'s·clotli.¢.S.. (53 ~ ~ 48-52.) cargitl adlil.ltted to wa:siling her car on JUile 19 In order 'to de·moy any evidence. She alsa confessed to .gQing tO the WhltehOO!e p6llce- Station, also on June 19, to attempt to ge.t ·fnfurmation abOUt Walker JX)temially being fotJnd. Cargill adamantly denied killing Waiker. (5·3 RR. at 5:3-s:~q at sre• l¢ngth tegai:ding tbe DUring cross-e>u¢iinati9tl, Ca:tgili te$tltied events ofJune 18 and-after, (See 53 RR at SS-54 RR at 8S..) Addltionaily~ Cargfll testified regarding prior b¢ -~~ ~e al)~edly C<$iJli~ including putting her hands around her mo.ther's throat. (54 RR at ~P-·39); biting her son Jamie (54 AA at 39-43); a:ild pushing and choking her son Zach} (54 RR at 43-47.) The def«;nse a.l89 presen1ed the following; the d_e_te¢tiv.e who searched W~er's apartment (()lP:ld pWs d_e:Signate_cl far June· 18 mWal.ket'.s pill organizer (54 RR at- 86-91 ); a case w~er fi:\;)1;11 ~e ~ckew.s Cen~ ~fle4 ~t she knew Walker was b~bysitting ar)d W8:$ doj~g S9 w.i~9~t problero_s (54 AA a~ 108,.18); an~ Cat&i1l'.s neighbor verified that CargilYs dog (ij_d m{act. go nussmg and she saw signs \ij) i~ th.e.:IJ~tgbboibood ~~\It 1;he-d.9g.6 (,4 RR ~t 145-48.) ~ Th~se priQr b_ad acts· were admitted ·in error. (See Appellant's Op:enihg Brief, Point ·or'Error No.5.) 6 C~rglll llad a tali of duet tape in the back of her SUV at the tiJ;De it w~ searched. (47 RR at 85'.) There was no ~vic,l~.t:tce ~t~d tb~ ijl~ d~~ • w~ used In any way the ~igh~ of Wal_ker~s death or had any connection whatsoever to the ins~Mt c~_e. However, the State· alleged ~ the duct tape. mUst have be¢n m Cargifl's car for a nefarious reaSon. (431Ut at 290-91.) C~giJI e.xpl~ dunng cro~XBJ11.ina(ion tb~t sbe had duct ta:pe in her car bec·ause 8ev~ months priot sne h~d h.®g ~P .sjgns ~~ areund the neighborhood regardj!)g }J~ n.liS$4:lg 4og~ (54 RR . . 23 • •• c. GuUt P~-~eba.~l bY tile S~te T:be State presented two witriesses in rebuttal. Fir$t, Walker's form~r neurole~.Dr. ~chard l)lrich,. testi'fled thatwhile Walker had a s¢iZure.diserdert it. was well ctinttOlled by medication .and the tQXi®logy scr~ning done at the aUtOpsy demonstrated that Walker had a therapeutic lev·el of ·medication in her s~jjl ~t the ume of het dea,th. Dr~ Ulrich wsufied that th«ne 'was no mdicatjon Walker had recently suffered a seiZure, deSpite selfo.reports to the. cOntrarY to her c\lrrent. n~J~ J;)r. UJ,rlch ~ nev~ seeQ a p~ertt die from a se.ltUre. (54 Rll at 11-18.. ) On cro.ss-eX.a'nilila~h>n, Dt. lilrich tt$tified that·while h~ had b~ of Sudden Utt.e:icpected.Death in Epilepsy ("StJDEP,.;).It Is exceedlngly tate and even more f&rely do¢5 it occur absen~ an l,Uld,erl;ying health is$\Je.•. (54 R.R atZ0·24.) Paula Wbeeiet was re-called and teStified regarding the phone, calls betWeen Walker ~d aqi.U on Jlu)e 18, ~d rei~ ~ W~l_{er ~-upset an4 rtervo~ about the s'r.lbpoena. qnd did not want tO go out to eat With Cargill. (54 RR. at 38.- 46.) D. Pun.isiUneot.PbQe P...ea.'-.ti~n ~ tbe:Sta~ At the punishment phase; ¢~ Sta~ pre~~ ~ wide vari,e_ty Qf wjt.rJ~~ who ws:tlfied t9 a multi:tude of' bad ~ alleg~_ly CQnmtjl:ted by CargiU:• Tb.is included neighborS who found Cargill to be difficUlt, aggre~ive, and verbally abUS:i've to h~r children (58 RR. at i ll-46; 62 R.R at 61·10); teachers who WitneSSed Cargtll's.~jye SJ)tJ lrratjOil~ I;Jeh_avjor to bctlllhem IP'.ld Carg\ll's c.b.i:ldren (58 RR a~ 245•56; 59 RR at 19-32, 43-50;- 6~ RR at 108-:17, 1.26-~0); a f~rrner·friend of Cargill's ·who experienced cargllJ's manipulative and voia~ile beJ,.~viQt (62 AA a; 72~106)~ fanner i!)-~w~ Wbo C~i_H aH.e&edlY. -~s.s~V..lteQ d4r{ng. em.oti.o~~ altercations (59 RR at :53·58; 60 RR :at 3247, .5()..S7); and Cargi.l~'s sister w~o ftequently·saw Cargill be·unpredic~~ble ~d ir@~i9rm..Uy ~W>'· (58 RR at Z.l2~37.) 24 • • The State ars~ ~~ CargilPs moth~, Rachel Wilson, ~h.o ~fied that· Cargill h~ ~ good U.fe gtdW~ ·UJ? ~4 tile SUPPQl't of b~l' ra:mu.y. Wilso~ further t¢s~Ji.e4 t_o C~II's vol_~~i)e beb.ayi~r -~~ tb~ faa.~~ sh~ was e~ily ptQvo~~· Wilson w.: alleg~_dly ~~It~ by· C~U in l994, Wilson al$9 t~tifi~ as tq t;b~ circumstances ·sUttOundlng het 3sSt'iinlng c.uStody of Cargill's S()il in June 2010. (58 RR at 149-210_,) The State presented C~ll' s. three ex-husbands ·and one ex-boyfriend. They recounted their alleged mistreatment at the bands of Cargill and various inddents ofviolenc:~_; emotional abus.e, and volatility. (5.9 RR at 76-1 i'2; 60 RR at lOl-4.2; 61 RR at· 51-91; 63 RR at 6S-121.) Three of Cargill's four children also testified ~~g ~leg~ i.nci(Jents of phy,ical and e.ll.10tlO~ @,buse tb.ey smfe:red l;Jy Cargill. (60 RR a:t 10-30,157-93; 61 RR at 7-33, 101-5 L) Cargill's former in~Iaws testified to alieged bad acts c.ommitted by Cargi.H against b()th. them and their son. (61 RR at 7--&t) The State presented a psychological report from 1993 where the evaluator dia.po8ed Cargill wj.t;b ~ ~~tNe personality wiUt ~--5.5i_sti.c an4 J;ijst_rionic featut¢8. (58 .RR at 40~) Also ~tifyibg were jailer! and depUties from Smith County ja.ll who bad negative experiences with Ca:rgi:ll (63 RR at224-03, 233.4.0, 244-49, 252-59;· 64 RR a~: 7-12, 18--33, 45-58, 64-79, 8_5-90~ 93-99), and· twl) ~QrreaionaJ officers who t~titi~q .regardih$ cl~sjfjcaqQg. @d tl;le di_ff~rence. between death row and life in general popwatlQn With. a li.fe wj_t})~ pato~ '7 . . . -. s.eilten·ce. (63 RR at 16&204, 261::-77.) 7 Th~- officers provid~ inconsistent infonnatio:n regardin·g classific:ation policy· and proCedures. ($ee Appeil_1lllfs Open(ng Brief~ Poin~ ofE_rror Nt)s. 7 l!l)d 8.) . 12. 25 • • ~ Punj$b_me~Jt·P~ase Pr~_ntation by·th, Def~n$e The defense presented the dry cleaner and law firm runner who hap.dled the cl.oth~ Ca.rgill wore ~U trial to ad~ the allegation she had c(urttaband in the fmm of a stntigb.t pin in her c.ell (65 RR .at 18,.19, 23-25), a,s well -~ fo~ co~o11~ offi=:s from S!Pitb C(J.unty jail w.ho testified that Cargill was not a prQbl~ tnro~e.• (66 AA ~ 9.4.•97., 102·.,()4, 112-16; 68 RR -at 9-1 L) Addi'tio~aily, an h:ln.ta~ bQ~ wi~ Cargill t~~ifi'ed that C.a:rgill was kind to her and Cargill was tre~~d po<:>.rlY by tbe Other i.l1mat9.. ( 68 RR. 21-16-.) Ad:diti.Qnally, the d.ef~se pl"esented. two expert witnesses·. Dr. AntQinette McGattahan, a fOreJ1s.ic psycl:;tologlst, ~~tied that she intervi¢\llled Cargill and admmistered to her ~ battery of neuropsychol~gic:al tests• Vl~m~~ely, Dr~ MeG~ di~os~ CargiU With horoetlme personality diSQrder wit:b, narcisSistic and amisocia.l pemoilality traits. Dt. McGamhan indicated that the. av~abl~ J.it¢.f$tpre s~~stS th• person.~jty dl8orcle.ts· develop as -~ resu.l~ of environ.ment.. Dt. McOarrahaft acknowledged that there is no cute for personality dl'sorders btit medicati9n such ·a:s mood stab(}~ can help to cQritrol the ~ptQills_. (65 RR at 2·7-56.) Dr. Jonathan Lipman, a neliropharmacole)giSt, te~$.fjec;l ~ Cargill bad taken prednisone, a corticosteroid a:t different times in her Hfe, aJ)d ~l th~ tjme of~e al.leged crimeha4 ~bruptly ~tin~.ei;f the psychj._~c d.n:lgs Klonopm and Cel~x.a .. Dr. LiPm~ t~fif3d t~ th~ effect th.attb.ese drugs can ha:ve on a pe!'S91i, c()nSiderlrtg-a nu:m.bet of di'ffetent variables;8 (66 RRat 6-44.) F. Ponish~ent Pb:ase Rebuttal by U.e S~te In re~, the.S_tate presented Dr. timothy Proctor, a forem1c psychologist, who agreed with ~. ·,McCJarrahaP.;$ d)~gn_Qsjs ()f borderline per8onality d'isorder. J)r. Proctor di'd ~Qt agree ~itb Dr~. ,M:cG.arrahan's assessment that. Cargill eXhibited The trial court erroneously limited the $COpe of Dr~ Lipman' s· testimony. 8 (See App~IJ~IDfs Ope.t:ain$ Brief, Point ofE,nQl' No.9.) · 13 26 .... • • t:riji~ of n.~is5isdc person~~~ di.sOtder· but. believed Cargill, s diagnosis t,o include narcissistic p·~onality disord.er filll"-scale. Dr. Proct()r alSQ betiev~ C~ill eXhibited every criteria of antisocial personali~ disorder but :a(:kno'Wledged t;here ~ QO inq.jcl¢jo~ tb.~ beh.aViQ~ c~cteristi:cs ~~an priQI,' t9 Cargill's ~nage years. Additionally, while not. di~osable, Dr. Proctor believed Cargill ~ ~e characteristics: eon:sistent With psychopathy. (68· RR. at 43-7.8.) Dr. Eclward Gr:iPQ~ ~ psyeb.i@'.ist, t¢Sptied con:u.y to Dr. I,.ipm:an and ~~ ~J m.osi people on Klonopiil and/or Celexa do not have .side effects.. i>r. Gripon asserted that Cargill rook prednisone intenrtit~gly and he would not ex~ h tc;» l;u.ive -~ effect on her cognitive fUnctioning. ln his opinion, the drugs Cargill was taking had no relevance to the: case. (60 ·RR at 8_().:. i 14.) IlL StANDARD OF CARE A. Ineffective AssiS.tance of Trial Cou~l A ~rnin.al defendap~ is ~~~ed ~~ ri$ht to :tr:i.$:1 represeJ;~tatio~:· This Sixth ~dn:t~- righ~ to ~ounsel "pre·serv~ the tairn~ss, consistency, and reiiabiiity ·of crln1inai pft)ceedings by ensuring that the proceSs 1s an advmanal one." Ex-parte Flores, 387 S•W. ld 626, 63-3 (Tex. Crim. App.• 2012). An ineff~ctive ~sistan~~ Qf court_sel claiin has two components: Carg1ll In:uSt show that counsel's performance was deficient; and that the deficiency prejudiced the d~fen,se. S~Jdan4 v. Was_hirtg1o_n, . 466 U.:S. 668, 687 (1984); ·see . . also Pqrter v. McCollUin, ·sss· u.s. 3.0, 38~39 (2009); Wiggins v. Smith, -539 u~s. -51 o, .521 (2003); Vii'gil v, bretke, 446 F.3d 598, 608 (Sth Cit. 20o6); Ex parte Jimenez, 364 · S.W.3d 866~ 883 (TeX. Crim. . App_. 20li); Jh.o;;zpson, 9 SJV.3d ·at 812 (""(A]ppell.arit must show a reaso~~ble probahility tl).at 'but for co~l's· unprofes:sional errors, th.e·res.ult oftheproceedlngw.ould have b.e:en different."). ·27 • • To eStabliSh defi.Ciency~·C.argill.mu:st show her c~1D1.Sel's rep~sentation fell beiow an objectiv_e standard of reasonableness. Porter~ :558 'U.s~ at J-8 ..39 (quptfrJ.g Stt_iC.lrl.an4., 4.6~ u.s. at 688). A defend- n~ Qr.dy·prove ineff~ye as$s.~~·of ·co~ ~y a preponderance of the evidence. Th'omps_o,, 9 S~WJd at 813. Thi.~· standard gQverns the: c~aim as a whole, and qoes ilot repla~ the more leniem: '-~le·probabjlity" sW1®rd for·~e·prejudic~ prong. The Supreme Co\lrt has reiterated that. it applies a "case-by-cas~ approach to dete~g whether an attamey-'s performance was unconstitutionally deficitmt under.Str.it:ldaru:C' Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U$. 3.74, 393~94 (200.5) .(O'Connor, J:., concu.r_ring) (dtiilg- Strickland, 466 U.S. 668). Deficient P«formance i.s perfQnn~ce tbat is "i,ncoll$istent with tb~ -~ · of professional competence in capltai·cases that preva.il¢d (at the time oftbe trial]." C~.flm. v. Pi,ho(~.fer, 131 S. C~. 138:8;, 1407 (20.11). The Supr profe~i9I:taJ. nqm;ts of effective represenJ,ation")~ Rompilia, 545 U.S. at -387 (""[W]e long ~ve ie(erred [to. the 4114- Standards for Cri,i!l,iJr(l,/ ·Jus#ce] 8$ gui4,e$ to determ.inihg what is re:asona:bie." (internal quotations and citations Qiriitte'd)). Bee~ a~eq1.1aq i.s h:ased upop. "c:ounsel'$ perspe«iye at the time," Stri!;ldand, 466 u~s. a~ fi89, co~~ lOQk. to-Ut~ guic;ielirt~ th«m i" e.ffeet. See Bobby v.; Van Hook, SS8 U.S. 4 (2009). At the time of Cargill's trial, her attomey·s• obligatiolis were governed by the ·'·'prevailing profession~ np~," eve.n if ~bose gonl)S did t:tot a1igp with a 1~ iigorou_s 4-efens.e based ol:J "most c_ommon customs." Harrington v. Ric/iter, , i31 S. Ct, 770, 788 (201.1). The Supreme Court instructs c·ourts to Io.ok at tbe "nonns 1.5 28 • • . . ofpra,c~¢e $.5 reflected in Anl~~~ B~ Asso~ia~iQD standards ~~ th~ Ole~(; ~d to c~nsi4et "al_l the cl~c;:es" Qf ~ ~- StriqkJ.an4, 466 u.s. at 688. Tltese. sources of nof.rils incl~de ~e AJJ4 Gf!ii!e!ines for the 4piXJintment and Performance ofDefeJ't$e Counsel ~" De!J.tb Ptma#y CtMes 2()03, 31 liOFS'i'R:A ·L.. REv..9i3 (2003) ("ABA Guidefma") and the ABA Sttm,dardsforC.rimi~l J~t_ice (3d ed. 1993) ("4BA S!.an.t/fzrf/3"); ·see also State B~ T~_.., Guideli.ires an4 Sf~ds for T~ Cll]Jital Co·Z!f#_e.l (April 21, ZOO~) (~-T~ G.uft!~#nes"). Defe_nse counsel h.~ a dt:Jty to il:i~~ re~le inve.·stiganons or to makie a re;aso~ble· ~siPn ~makes parti~~ im-~~g~~ wm~es_s~. Wiggins, 539 U..S... ·at 5.21; S.~kltiiiiJ, 466 U..S. at 690.91:. "[Th.e] 0\Ade~es· applied ~e clear requirer:n~nts for ~ny~ga.tiOl;l set forth in th~· ~.i~r S~4a'tds t~ dt:~~ penalty C.l$e.S ·an:d. ·imposed ... ~jmi.larly forc;:~@ll 4i~_ve[~]." /~.p,p(lla; 545 U.:S. ~ 381 n/1.. Purs~~ to tb.e ABA G~t.l¢.liD~ co.~l is reql#te:d to c:onduct ~prough ~d htd~tm~ b.tv~tjptl~ns rel~g t9 ~e· iSsues of both guilt and penal~.n ABA Guidelines; G.uidelihe 10.7. A court til~ con.Si.der not only 1;h¢· ·· quantiun of evidence already knoWn to counsel, bUt also whether the known eVidence w.ouid I~ a rea.Sonable ·a.tt.Pmey tQ !nv~pte ~~r. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at :521;· Milier v. Dretki!, 42.0 F.'.Jd 356, 3lH (5th Cit. 2.005).. When defens.e· cotm:sel is nOt aware of the relevant mitigating evidence, "the issue is not whether h~ w~ i.n.dfecijv~ fQr wi.~s· to ~t [th~] evjd,ence ...• bu~ @Jh~ wl1,eth~ l)e failed to conduct a reasonable investigation ~o uncover n;aiti'gatirtg evidencel' & parte Gonzales, 204 S.W.3d 391,39.6 (Tex. Crim. App.. 2006). Similarly-, t,he ABA Standards State that cOWisel "should conduct. a prompt investigation of the circumstances· of the case ~d '"'Pl.ore all avenli¢s le.aQin~ t9 facts relevant to the merits ofthe case. and the penaity.·" ABA Standatds, Standard 44.1;· Texas Guide/fnes, GUideline 1Ll. Most sign,ificantly, ~[t]he dmy to • ~vesti~~e ~xJ~t;s ~~n:Uess of the a.ccused's admi.ssl~ or sta~lllellts to d~.fense 16 29 • • cotm8~1 off~. ~nstlruting guflt or the accused's .stated desire to plead guilty." Jd Similarly,. the duty t9 investigate may e,xist d_~jt~ the accu_s~'s fail~. t~ mention potentially miti,gating evidence or .the accused's afinmatiVe denial that such evicJ.ence ~-s~. Ro-mpi)JQ., 54~ U.:S .. ~ 377·;· Ex piirle Gonzmea, 204 S-~W.Jd at396. Once capitai trial coiinsel ®mpletes the :neceS:Sary p~al ·inveStigation, he must th~ formulate a de~nse the.ory "th~t will be eff~ve in C4:>nnecdo~ with both gUilt ·and penalty, and should Seek to minimize atly inconsi~cies~·; ABA Guid~#ntJS., Gujd~lin~ 1().1 0. 1. The CCA holds c'J)ital. ~unsel tQ an evtro. b.i~e,r ·standatc;i: "It is n~·sufficient to inquire. genet:ally and leave it up to· the d.~{en4.an.t to r~se topi~ o.- ~ ~ ope1.1o.en~ ql,les#.@"· LUte a d~to~, [capi®.l deft!~se coun;sel ~~ be &J'D'!e4 witb a ~preh,etl,$jve c~ec~'"list of poS:Sibilh1e$; &Jld forceftiiiy inquire:about each topic~;, Gonmles, 204 S.W.J.d at 400-01 (Coehriin,.J., ¢Qn~urri.n&>"- to estabiiSh p~jUdiC:e, cargill "m:ust show that there is a reasonable probabllity ~ but for counsei's Uri.profes5ional errors, the te5ult of the proceeding woUld have been ditierent" Stric.k4ind. 466 U..S:. ·at 694. ·A re~onabl~ probability is "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [the) outcOme.'' Porter, •30 S. Ct... 't:4.55..56"'( 30 • • State post~con:viction coUI't$ must atialyze a capital peiiWJty plialJe in·effectiv~ess· claim by -~weigh[i~$] tl)e evidcm~e ~ :~gravatian agailtst:- .the· totality of available tnitiga~g ~vi~~~~l' Wiggi.ns, 539 U.S. at 534. ft ·Is not nccess:ary for t.h~ pe~~oner· to d~oll:$:ate th~~ the· l)¢wly ~~ted mitigating evidence wo.uld necessarily overc(Jm~ the aggravating circ\m.ls~~es~ W#(it»M ~· Taylor., 529 U.S. 362; 394-98 (2000). the. Co~~O:JJ. ~:s tba~ ~e post~ conviction ~ ~engage w.i~ w~ [a def~daJ:J.~] ~ly w~t tlirOugh," as expressed mmitigating evidence.. PQrter, 558 u.s.• a.t 44.~ I~ is DQt only in~ btn "unreasonable to discount to trrelevat:lce [miti$a~~l evi~en~ ••.. [Qt] to con-clude that [~ mitigating evid~ce] w.ould ~ red.uc:ed t9 incQ.JtSe.q~~ proportions simply because the jUry would alSQ have learn~ [~f related ~a~g evidence]~, 14. The Tex.as Co~· of C~~ app~s "[ha,s] ~~ the S\lpr@le C~:urt's prejudic:e ~st-to require that there is a reqscmable probability that, absen~ the errors; tbe ju_ry wo~ld b,ave :~erect the. Diltigation issue ~ff~~y~"- Go.~q.Je.s, 204 s.w~:3d ~r394. - - AsSistance- B.. .IneffeetiVe . App . of ·· · eliate .. Counsel ..... lneffe:ctive assistan,ce of appellate C®n.Se.l cl~s ~ ~oveme4 by Strickland. Smith v. !l-obb'ins, 52.8 u.s. 259.~ 285 (20.00) ("the pt6p:er· s:ta:nda:rd f~r evalu~tl_ng [a l'etit;ioner's] claim that appellate counsel was 'ineffective . -~ . is tha,t CJJunci.a~ed Strlc/4.a.~d W~lilngro~ ); 70 ii:t v. Evitts v~ Lypey, 469 U.:S.. 3.87, 396:-97 ( 1985) (the Fourteenth Arileiu:hnent. requ.lres the assiStance of cou:ns~I to appellBJ;lts for their fJ.l'St:appeal as of right); accord Riea v~. QUarterman~ 522 F.3d 5i 7, 531-32 (5¢ Cir•. 2008)~ Ex F,fe S4.1J.(t!!J!!., 2~7 S.W. .:J'Q. 700, 7()4...(}5 (T~x. Cz:im. App. 2007). ,Appel~e coJ.Ml.sel has a duty to review the record :and present any potentially merltoriotts .claims. Meza. v. State; io6 S.W.ld 6.84, 689 (Tex. Crini App . .2006) 31 • • (t:lof:ing appella~ ~iinSel's "constitutional dilty to review the record for any arg\iable ~). .C. s~ope of the Waiver of.Attorney-Ciient'PriVilege Cargill ~Qgftlzes· that rai:~ing .sp¢Cific .i,$8'-le.$ of inefte:ctive ·assiStance of counsel as developed mthis Application Operates as a lim.ite.d waiver ofpri'Yile~~ ln:forn,Iatjon.; how~er, sh~ ~rts her right ta have· all prlyileged mf~Q11 X,9t . . ditec~y relevant to said claJ.ins remain privil~ge4_. Under the texas Rules of Eviderice, tQnfidenual c_ornmunicati_t:tns b~~ !1 client and her attorn,.~ are privileged. TEX.. R.. _IMD. 5Q3(b)( l XA} ('-'A clie.(i~ has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prev_ent any oth~ ~rson fro~ djselosing · ~fidel)~~ ~unic_&:tlo:t)s ~e fQl" ~ .P~~ .of faciiitating the rendition of profes_SiqJXalle¢. $e;r\iices- to~-~ cli~t . , -. between the; eli~~ .- .. and the· cfient's l.a'INYer.-':t)~ ·tJ?.~ privileged rtature of communications betWeen client arid a®rn~ remains- i~~ evcm ~pon the te~on 9f the attorney-Client relationShip.. See MarylaridAm. ~h.~~:-.'' Tifest v. So#t(), 5(;3 S.W-.2d 24,0, 2.45 n.3 (Tex. 1_978). 1_1) the cort~¢xt of eriminQ,} l.~w. co~ ~~ss- the nat.im:t have cm:tsistently "held that a claim of ·ineffe¢t.lve assiStance ·of couns:el by a defendant agmnst a foJ'IJler- anorney waives the attomey~IIen:t pnvil~g~." Joseph y. S~, 3 S.W~Jd 627, 637 (iex. App_.~ Ho~n [14t:h _Dist.] 1999) (citi_ng Laughner v. United States, 373 F~2d 326, 327 (5th Clr. 196.1))~ see. also United Sta~e_s- v.. Pi~'Q"', 584 F.3d 97Z, 97S (lOth Cir. 2009}. Howeyer, ai:IY waiv~r· of the a~ey-cl_ient privilege on:ly ~pli~s to communieatiOI,lS relevant to the claim of lneffectiYe assistan~ of c_ounseL 19 32 • • Laugh.ner, 313 f.~d ~ 3.27 (wh~ '1tbe ~i~~~ ~leg~ a breach of duty to ~ by the attorney, .•. he thereby waives the priVilege a:s tQ all conun1,111ic~•ons relevant to ~ issile" {emphasis added)). Coutts .have consistently lhriited the .S@pe ofth¢se waivers, penn:tttmg di:sclos)JR: of only th,oSf: ¢an.fid~nt,i~ comm.~~!;ioJ!S t)la! ·~ "necessary to prove or dl!iprove [~e client's] .claims.'' Pinson, s·84 F.3d at 978· (emph~i.s added). 9 s~ 9 c#st;J B((tol!:er· v. Yloodfor4., 331 F.3d 11:5, 720 (9th Cir•. 2003) ("Beca~e ~ \Y3.ive;r .~ te 33 • • Predecessor co~.l '$ 4:u~ ~o li.~~ dlscltistire ~ irt(ofinati~n relevant to the claim of ineff~tive assistance al$0 flows ftorn ®unsel's· continuing ~1,1~ to t;lte fotm.er client. Both the ABA Guidelines and Texas Giddeli.~ stip~~ t_ll~~ "'[i]JJ. accordance. With pofessio~ l')O~, all persoll$ wbo ~ or ~ve been t:n~~rs of the defense team have a continUing dUty tO safeguard th:e ~e~ Qf the cliem_;~ ABA ®.idefi!Jea, G\ddeline 10.-13; Texas Guidelines., Gui~l~e·l i._s. Af}A formal Opiriion 1()-456 states that in the con~ of an ineffectJve ass~ce of co\msel c(aim, laWyers may disclose· "information "reasonably n¢~" (Qr ~lut,ion of the ineffectiveness· claim. ABA S~d.ing C~ m;1 Ethics ~ Profl &espon:slblfity, Foimal Opinion 10-45.6, s (2010). I:Iowever, ~ opinion :further s.tat.es that it is "'higbly un.lil5~ly tb$ ~ 4~~c;.l.~ in ~sponse· to a prosecution ~itest, priQr to· a colilt-~~rvi:se4 response by way of testimony or otherwise, wi.ll bej~tjfi~le/' /d. the. defendant waived the benefits of both the. attamey-clieilt privil~e and the Work product privilege, but only with re:spect to matters re.1evW1t t() hl$· allegatilllls of i11e.f1ective as_si.s\ailce of counsel" (second ~mphasis added))i Waldrip v. Head, 532 S·..E.2d 380; 387 (G_a•. 200.0) ("[W]e }lold ~at ~ h~ petit\·q~er who ~.s:erts a cl~m Qf in~ff~~ve ~.$sist.~m.c~ Qf ~ourw:l m~~ a lilni~ w.~ivq oftb~· ~~t:JJ.ey., client privilege:and wotk prod:uct doc.trine and the state iS entitl~ onlY tQ c~l's doCUments .and fi.les re~eva.rr.t to the speci.fic allega~QI)S of ineffectiveness." (~mpJJ..s1.s ad~ed)); In re Dean, 111 A.2d 25:1~ 2.58o;S9 (N.H. 1998) (".We hold. that claims of' in~ffective as8istanc~ of c~unsel, whether bn)ugt¢ in ~ rnoti:® fQr new trial or.-in a habea.s corpu_s proceeding, ccmstiwte a w~vet of the atto:r:ney- cllent pnvi)ege to the extent relevant to the ·Ineffectiveness claini; the waiver i_s a limited one~" (emph&Sis· added)). 21 34 • • IV. ARG~Nr CLAIM ()N"E. n,IAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECfiVE FOR FAILiNG TO PRESENT' EVIDENCE'THAT CUE.AAY W.t\L_Qll D~.P OF SUDDEN UNEXPECTEJ)' DEATii.IN EPUSPY RATHER THAN HOMICIDAL ViOLENCE Post-wpvi.c~iOJ:l inVe$tjgaAon ~ revealed that Cherry Walker died ilot. of homitidal Violertce at the ·handS of Kimbetiy Cargill, bUt of the ~Iatively rate, but certa1nly .not.. titiknown, disorder SUdden Une)Cpected · Oeath in Epile~ (,;.SUDEP'·'). Trl$1 counsel was q.w~ c,>f 1he ex,\ste)l~ of ·tJ:u.s disorder and the possibility that. it caused Walker'.s. death, yet inexplicably failed to pres~ eviden.ce of it iJl order to support apld corroborate Cargill's version ofeven~ on the tiight of June 18, 2010. If Q.ot for this failw-e, at least one jl1ror·would have found tb.~re to be R.'~ilabl.~ d.oUb.t ~ C.~il.l ~~ly ~ec:J tb~ death of.Wal.IQ;r by m.eans of homjci~.l viole~ an~ woW,d ~9t h~ve conYicted her of cap1tal inurder. Trial coun:s:ei's. faili.lie constitUtes ineffective assl~ce, prejudicitig CqiJi's' rightS under the state and federal ConstitUtions; state statUtOry Ja:wlr and United Stat¢S S:\lpreme Co~ and. ·sWe case law.. Ac~gly, both Caf8iU"s ~;r;tVictiol) apQ, d$th $ent.e.n~ shQuld be revers.ed. A.. SUDEP Evidence Presented durlJig the GuiJtli:no~eil~ Pbase ofT~ Cargill W.St.ifled in. her own defense at the guilY,~o~~e ph_a.se of her· t,ri_a_l_. (See Statement of Facts, ante, for ·a fuil recitation ofCargiif;s teStimony.) Cargill t~stifie.d that on the evening ofJune 18, 2010, she and Walker ate dinner at a local res~urant. Cargill was in the process of driving. Walker home when Walker had a seizure. (53 RR at.39-4L) When the seizUre ended; Walker was: net breathing aiid had 11'0 pulse. (5.:3 RR at 44-47.) Cargiil attempted to resuscita~e Walker but was 35 • • W\SU~S;S.f\Jl, IJ;13 mot:n~l)~ ofp~c, at;ld because she W~ conV.lnced itO. one would ~lieve She was not. responsible for Waiker•s de$h, CargiU djd not·take Walke.r·~ a.nearby hospital but instead drove around 'rar alnlost an ho\Jr. tllt.im.ately, CqiU Ietl Wal~'s b()(ly on. tb<: $icle ofa I1D'Eil ~ad. In an anempt to d~troY ~Y of her own biological II'.Ulterial on Walker's p:er.son, Cargill set fue to Walkers shi,rl. (S3 RR~4+$2.) Cargill was cross-examined for hours and was subje:cted tp ridicule, c.all~ a ki'il~r and a. liar, arid told by the State that her version of events could not possih•y be true~ (See 53-54 RR ~t ~S.im.) Tri_al counsel did nQt present witne$Ses, ~eri or otherwi.s~ or m,y other evidence fu slipport of Cargill's ~;lCJ'~® ofWalk~'s d~.10 · Iil ~' the S~a~ pres~~~ Or. Rich~ t}lri~.b, a n.~Jqgi_st in the· Tyler · area, . - . c_argt to. coU:nter -·'ll's testim · · that - . oey . - Walker ...... suffered ---- . . a seizUre - while ridin:g in C~:W$ ~ Or. Ulrich ~tin~~~ W~er w~- hi_s p~cmt fQr ap. UJ).determ.ined a,moUJ)~ of time J#.i9r t() .Z003 an~ 14~ again for -a short period in 2009. He last· saw Walker 011 April 24; 2009/~ (55 RR at 9.) Dr. Ulrich teStified that he had never kn-own of anyone to die· ftQm ~ilepsy itself~ on.iy from other di.~ in addition tO the:epllepsy. (55 RR at 10-it, iS.) ° 1 Folh,wing- Cargill's tes:tim()ny, the def~nse· presente4 Detective Jam~s Riggle, who testified he found medication in a.pill organizer at Walker's ho.use (54 .RR. at 8~ 102}; Brenda Whitiiker who t~ified she was aware Waiket was babysitting several children (54 RR at 10843)'; ·and Loren PWg- Who testifi'ed she w~ ~~ C.miJJ w~ lOQk_ing far h~r IQ.s~ qog._ (54-RR. a~ 14~~<'2:.) N 36 • • Dr.. Ulrich ~$0 te.stifi'~ W~~t suij'~d trQ~ "general~d toruc-cloriic seiZure$,. but that her· cc;m-c;lition was· not ~e ~ ~· lQIJg 8:$ ~~ too~ h~ ·preseribed.·medicatio:n,. t egtetol, 12 she did not have any probl'ems. (5.5 RR a~ 11.- lZ.) TQ ~;>,.. tJ.lri~~s be.st.recolb:ction, Walker began having seiZures at the ag~ of siX'teal .and bad them. o:ccasionally thereafter, sometiin~s whe:n she ~ ou~ o.f .1;11edica~. WeU,le:t,me give you a short. rundown on it. When yo~ have a sei:ii.Jie, you don't breathe.. Ifyou.doJ;t't get oxygen for a lo~ enough time, because you're not breathing, or i'f you swafiow food and the food goes doWJ.l ~~o YO\P" J.w:tgs ~d st9ps your oxyg~ from. g~tpng i~ your IU1tgs, or if you have a seizure and you hit your hea4 CIDd you have bleeding, if you. have a:n infection that. increases your chance t9 h~ve· s~ir?wes, you cou.I~yc;>u cou.I4 qie wj.tA t®.t:.~ 12 Tegretol is the brand name of the drug carbamazepme. 24. 37 • • (55 RR~~ ~l.) Following.Dt. Ulrich's explanation ofSUDEP, defeJw:·to.UnSel handed him ·~ artlcl~. printed from the· "Medscape" webs1te (www.Medscape~com) aild asked 13 him to read it.. (See Ex.. 31 (Medscape Art. on StiDEP].) . Dr. Ulrich ®mplied - and stated that he did not believe w~t was said in "the ixrst oouple of-para~phs'; and that . he . . ncrt know .. did . an . Y'·one who . .. beH.eved .. . that " .. "co.Jl$l,S· tent . . . and pa..tterns incide·nts are obvious in su.ddm litleX:peeted .death epilep•y for eight to seventeen ~~-" (SS AA·~~.23~) Defcmse co~~~ pro¢ee4¢d ~o recite from the d~ent the criteria for SUDEP developed by the United States Ft:>od an_d Drug Admlnistration ln. 1993. (Jd) Dr. Ulrich acknowledged that tbe Stu~ies teg~l,t:tg SUDEP .existed but~· he believed ·jt ~ ''very, vecy rwe" ~~~.ere are ahead . )' underl!}'1118 ·• · P-1:0·blems . . .in .. . He -. the brain. . also indicated . : · ds on . it. "depen . that w.ho yot:t re..a4 and wb9 yo~ ~i_ieve~ ~d "yau have to you use judgment in what see and do ·and exp~en®." (SS' RR at 24.) Fin8Ily, Dr. uirich acknowledged that there is a phenomenon caiied "sUdden unexpected death'' where a person dies for no discem.able·~n ~4 811 aUtopsy will not~~~ the c~~ (55 RR at.25.) Oil re-direct examination;. Dr. Ulrich teStified that based on Walker's histozy an~ the level ofTegretol.in h~body atthe·titne of autopsy, he: did notbeiieve she: die:d from a seiZure. (55 RR at 27, 30.. ) Dr. Ulrich ·was shown the ~c.ords of Walker's neurologist at the time of her death,. Dr.. Kariampuzha, and opined the ' seizUres Waik:er seff.:reported In the menths preceding her death could have been $.Qtn.e(h..n:$ om~ tb4.n ~ seizure_. (55 RR ~· 27~30.) Dr, Ulricb furtlt(rr tes:tjti·~ ~ba~ wl:U_Ie being ~d~ ~ lot Qf ~s n:Jight in~~e W~~fs ~ll~ces o( }:ul~g· a se]iure, it would not have increased her risk of suffering ·from SUDEP. Oespii~ the fact that Ute article w~ ~ed ~ ~ 4¢fense· e·~ibit i.t does not 13 appear to he in th.e Clerk~s R~c~rd, ~4 as such is. in~ludeci ~ E.*ibit 31 to if#s Appli'eati~n. 38 • • Uitimatelr, .Dt. Uiiich did not believe Walker died as a res:uit of SUDEP, a message .the jwy was left With jUst priorto th~if·c;ielibera.tions. (55 RR at 35,..36~) B. SOOEP Expert th~ medical examiner Wh() p¢tfortned Wallcet's Bl;rtQp'sy coUld not d~term.i~e a cause of death, out concluded that there were slispieiau:s. circumstances CC)tiSistent With homicidal .. . . Vioience . .as .. . .. manner the . .. .. .. ... . Therefore of death. .. . ' it. was. vital. to. the def¢nse that trial oounsel offer an explanation for the cause ofW.alket's de¢1 that s~ C@.l'gil,l'~ te.sfun~my. Co~!deting ~at co~el w~ ~wareQf'W~~r's ~~ive qtedi~a.J. ~q:ry tb.rQ\lgb. djs.cQvezy, includip:g ongoing appointmentS With neurologists to address her recent seizmes, there. was ·reason to investigate the ~~biijty of~ ~del)~ or~-~ ~il:se ofWaU<¢r~~ ~~~ An expert m.seizure disoi'ders and SUDEP., such as Dr.. Samden Lhato~o, c:Ould :t,ave provided ihe jury with (;ompelling testimo:qy as to the eXistence and ptevalen:c:e, of SUOEP and the likeliho:od of that beittg the ~use of Walket's death) 4 Dr. Lhatoo is the Director. of the Epilepsy Center in the Department of N:euroJ.ogy·al Unive.:sif:Y Hospit3)s Case M~i~ Cen.t~ ~ 'Cl.evel$11~ Ohio. (E;,_t, 1 at i [Aft'.. of!>J:'. Lhatoo].) He is aLso a profes5or of neurology at Case Western Universicy·and has speciaiiZed 'In the field of'''m.ortality 'in epilepsy'' over·the past sixteen years. (ld) Dr. Lhatoo is consid~ed an 'international authority in SUDEP r¢se.Ch and has published multiple landmark ar~icl~ i11 t}:le field,.. IJJs ~ reviewed publlciirlens have·colleet!vely_gamered over 3AO citations." (ld) It is of nate tb~~ ~. L.h~t9c;l w~ one of the· many SU't>EP e.~perts ci~ in 14 the Medscape article that: courtsel used to cross-examine. Dr.. Ulrich. (&e Ex. 31 (Medscape Art on SUDEPJ.) 15 See.Exhi"bit 1 at Attachment A (Aft. of Dr·. Lhatoo] for·a complete copy of Dr. Lhatoo~s curric7il_um vitae. 26 39 • • Dr-. Lhatoo ·was retained ~Y ctiii'elit po$t-,.conviction cQtm,sel to review materials pertaining to Ca:rgill's case and render an. opiiliQ!l a:s to tb~ likeli~ood. of having died Waik.er.... . . StiDE'P '. from . ... . ort based the know ....... . was avaibible at the ·- .ledg·e that tjtne Qf C.a®Jl's trjaJ, S3:$e4 em Qr. L~tOO'!ll revl~w of th~ atita:P!Y report PNPared by Dt. Meredith Latin., the tilll ~QI»pl.e!IJ.~~J ofWalket's medical reeotds provid~ througl:l 4.i~ery, -~4 1:1,1~ tri_B:l ~s~~ny of ~il, as weil as ilie testirnony of Or; L~ and :pr, Uhi~b., .Dr:. ~ coul4 fu.lve infonn~ Cargill;s j\p'y ~ '-'Chtmy W~er's de~tl:t ~~- H~ly to have· been a SUDEP death." _(Ex. l at. 9 [Afl ofDr: Lhatoo].) 1. Expl_aoatioil of SUDEP · SUDEP is 4-'efit:l.ed a:s a ~dden; unexpecte oth¢r: (1) the deceased's breathing Stops due t9 a fiita1 dys_functiOI:L in tl;t~ lmiinstem, w.bi~b cotrtrQls ~ing; (2) h~- heart myth.tu ls fi$lly djJ;~4 (~_so ~own ~ ~y:tbliliA); al'ldiQr (3) she experi~~~ ~ to~ electro-cerebral :shutdown. (/d.) In the Uriited States alone· It Is estim:ated that between 3,000 and 5,000 epi_lepsy pa#ep.~- die thml SUDEP ev~ry ye4_r~ (fd) F~~l\ Sl,JDEP occ~ in approXimately 1 in 3,000 epilepsy-sufferers_ per year. (Id.. at 3:4.) In fact, SUDEP is: the Ie~ing c:;tuse·ofdeath in peopie with chrome imcontroileti epilepsy. (Ex .. 26. at I [Dr. Tomson Art.]~) the rille further increases ·~n patients who haVe "frequent 40 • • se_izu"CeS,"-16 ~SQlti~$ in abou~ on~ d~~ 200 patien~ Jlef y~$:1. (Ex:. l at 6 [Aft· of Dr. Lhatoo].) The concemiDg tate of Su.bEP mepilepsy .patients b,_as led to considerable research in the field as well as fundraisiilg and awaren@S-nii_sing carnp_aign!;\ 1n the United S~ and oth~ cotmtrie·s~ .(Itt. a~ 6-7; -~e~ q_/s.o E~. 25 at 9 [Dt. Devlrtsky Art.] (noti'ng that natiQrta~ gUidelines iD the United Kingdom . .. . .. that recommend all ~..·nerits .. ..... ....e·P.U-- . . With ep8)'. and . their .. families . . be· prt>Vided with ·i:nf'Q~ation about StJPEP).) SODEP ts OO.t a n:ew phenomenon and is Widely accepted mthe medicill fieid. (Ex. 25• at 1 [Pt.. i>evmsky Art.]; Ex.. 26 at. 1 [Dr. Tomson Art.] .('·'There h;as· been in~ ~wareness of.~-. SUOEP over tb~ past two to three decades, -and what was onc·e disputed is· now aclmo:wledged a:s a seriou:s . ..problem . .. -- in · ·1·epsy").) .. epJ 2. Walker's Medical History Reveals Multiple RiSk Factors for SUDEP B~e4 o:p ~s review ofW~r's n.tedic~ ~oi'dS,_ br. LM.tOO found riumero\ls factors that were cortsistetit With SODEP and no sigiiifica.tit facjors· inconsistent with it. there are multiple· risk factors for SUDEP, but the tWo most significant factors are ~uffeiing from generaliZed t9ni~lonic S¢00ues (as· oP,pc>Sed ~ a different type of sei.zu:re) and active epilepsy manife·sting in irtt.ei"iitittent. seizures~ I (ex:.. 1 ~- 6 [Aft'. qf Dr. L~~].) Otbe.r ri.~ f~rs incly._d~ i.~«t~e levels of epilepsy medlcati 16 Seiiilres are: considered "frequent~' when they oce·Ur at. least monthiy. . (Ex. 1 at 6 [AfT.. ofbr. thatoo].) 28 41 • • of SUDEP to be about twenty-~ times higher i_IJ epi_lepsy p1ti~t,s who had experienced a, seizure in the preceding:y~·comp~ t9 ~-~.free p:atien:ts. (Ex. 26 ~ J [Or~ Tomson Art):.) Walker's m:edic:al ~nls and t~~o:Q.y from h~ fonney neurologi~ establish that she s:uff~ ~ get)~lized tonic"cloriic seiZUres. Dr. Ulrich, indicated in a Fel;mlary 20Q3 lett_er to Dr~ J~~ R..y A,n EE.G ~ a brain wave test 1JSe9 to diagnose, amQng Qther things, 11 epilepsy•. (Ex. 1 at 3 [Aft of Dr. Lhatoo].) 29 42 • • Q, se~ in "ye~." (E.x. 37 ~ T~~ Neuro.logy ~e¢9rtls];· see als.o Ex. 1 a:t 4 {Aff. of Dr: Lhatoo].) However; i.I) Fe~ 2010, .Dr. ~~~Walket's n~_logis.t a~ tbe ~~ o_f .b:~ dea~ote· that Walker had ~ navmg s.evere s.elzt,U:es ·cJescribed as sudden blackouts. (Ex. 36 (trinity Neurology Records.} Ac.corclil,tg th~ wti~g, Walker~s last se~ had ocC'l)ffed 1.1) JanWUy 7010, just. five m~n~ ~fore h_er d~. (ld) However, Dt. KariampUZha wrote one month l~• tb.a~ W~ker bad ~n h~vi.t;tg seiZures a1J4 ~· ~e-~ not. (Jd.) "Thlls;" Dr.. Lha~ sUrrtiJ~·t ~~- js 'evi4~ce to $\iggest that. [Walker] had chroriic aetiye «mil~sy ~4 ~ ~ hav~ se.izures in February 201 0 but it Is po8Sible that she had no further 5elzu:res when she was reviewed a month~- The I®jo.ri.ty of S'UDBP ViCtims have active epltepsy, althOUgh it is well.known to oc® in patients whose .. ·'1 .... -. is a:ppN. entl .... eptep,sy . 'Uiescent" .. ,,yq.,,. .. ... rov - . of Dr. Lhatoo].) \~.• 1 .at 4 [Aft . Even With the occasionaJ.iy contradictOry accounts from Walker'$ n_euroiogiSt:s, there is other: evidence to suggeSt that she was at a high risk of iitteririitteirt seiZlireS. Most n~l)iy, Wal~r ·suff~ fh)m obstructive:: $}~ ·$J>p~ a condition associated ·With poor epilepsy control. (Ex. 1 at 4 [Aft;:. ofDr.. Lha~].. ) IQ 2:006.• Or~ Ul_tic.h orqer~ liJ. sle~ ~dy ofWalk~·and th~ re~lts ~ incll~tlve of obstructive: sleep apnea and sleep fragmentation ... (Ex. 37 [E~ Tex~ Neurology RecordsJ; see a.ls.o Ex-, 1 at 4 {Aft ofDt; Lh~too].) R.~ iF)c.ijcate$ th~,tt OJ:tgoi,z:lg obs~ciive sleep apnea renders tu1 epilepsy patient.at risk oC:epileptic se1zu,res. (Ex.l ~ 4 [Aft.ofbr.. Lharo·o].) B~ on the medical teco$.av~lable, it ctoes not appear that Walket was ever prescribed anything to addre.ss the sle:ep ~~e-~ (14..) A~~ res~[t, .Qr. Lb~oo ~.~tm'l.e(s] tl;te P~-~~~ CQil~ued to. s\lffer fr'Qm obstruct,ive sleep ~pn~ ~d ... [w~_s] a! o.ngoml! tis.k ~f s~i~!l·" (14..) Those :with active, epilepsy are at a higher risk ofSuDEP. 43 • • ~· W~J.~'r Co!l.s.ste.~~ly H.•4 lnJ'tJequ_ate Levels of· Epilepsy ·Medication 'iii ll~r System W~~ w~ ~~ Tegrewl,@ ~tj,~ her death. (Ex. 1 at 3 [Aft of- Dt. Lhatoo];) Walker.'s neurological recordS. indicate ~t she ~ her t~~ol level$ t.e.~d ·Q~ ~· le.~~. t:wo occ~j~ns pri<=»r ta. ii¢t dea~, and on both occasion.S her levels· wete sub-thetap:eutic. (Id:) Tlt~1,J,t.ic l~veb e>f T~$N~l ~$~ fr'Qm ei$h~ t:(> twelve m.ierQgrams. per ti;ii:llilit¢t. 18 in September 20.04, Dt. U1rlch ~rted that Walker's leVei ofTegretol w~ .~..:5.2 mJ¢rq~s per .~{lliljterj and ·m November .2007 he reported 4.1 micro-· . gram ·· · milliliter. . per (ld '·a.e.e also .. . 37 n:o'<>m-·'Texas . . Ex. L~~ . 'Neurol . . .. · Records]-.) .Qf/,Y .. . . .: . these levels suggest that Walker was either non-®mplim~ With l'ser IUe.di~~ i-~- not ~g th~· M1 a.m.Q\I:Il.t p~~- agam bad-~ ·S\drthe~l,ltic l~e~ ofTegretpl in her ·gyste¢~.7 ml(;!'Q~~ per milli'ttter.. (EX. i .at.J [Atf.. of Or. Lhatoo].) Walker had a.).so b.een prescribed In March 2010-. (Eic. 16 [Tnnity 'Neurolo~ Pri.t'nidol)e. by i>r~ Kari~pUZha Records]..) App3rently, Walker was also pres.(:ribed ~ third ant.iepi·Ieptic drug. at 18 ~Mi¢togiains pet milliliter" is a ·mathematic.ally equal ratio t9 the '~milligrams per Hter" ratio referenced by Or. Ulrich in his testi.m.:o·n.y. 31 44 • • same· unknoWn time before her death, as phenobarbital was detec~ in het tox1co·togy repon but i$ riot mcmtion~ h.t her t:teuro!Qgy records. (Compp.re Stat¢'s trial EX. 265, with Ex. 36 [Ttlrtity Neurology R.ec~rdS].) Her primidone level at the time o{ ·~u;psy vias ''borcietline tow·,'' while her phenobarbital l_eyel was· "significantly low~" (EX•. 1 at.J" [.Aff.. of Dr. Lhatoo].) Bec$.ust; these :tn.edi~"~ Art];. EX. 26 at 3 [br. tom$on Art:.l.) In a survey of sey~ SUOEP s~die:S in .2008, four of the stUdies showed pOlytherapy :as a risk factor. (Ex. 26 at 3 (Dr. TQmSOJ:l A~J.) Wbi)e t.h~ use of polyt_h~py sin:~piy m_~y have been Qtl ijldi~tjon Qf ~~ epjl~, '~jr1g tl:u;ee [~~~jlept~c drtJ&S] con~Qn.tj~t,ly c~ with inonothetapy was asso:ciated With an [odds ratio] of 8:1 after adjUSttile'ht for seizure frequency." (id..) Wal_ker'~; tox~col.ogy rep·ort at ~utopsy si:towed v~.ou.s leveis of catbamazepine, prinlidoile, and phenobarbital.....;;.al} of which a:re 32 45 • • a.rt~ooJJ.v~l.sant.J,U~~q:Q.s. .This use ofantiepilepti~ PQlytll~py on Waiker, therefore, greatly increas~ her"ris.k ofSuPE.P . Mental -retardation has al$0 b~ reco~ .a:s a risk factor· for· SUOEP. One ~urvey c,f SQPEP $1Qi~ g.~ tl.'t!ee ~t· three such stwiies identified mental retardation as a risk. factQrfor SUDEP~ (:S~:· 2:5· a~ 2 [Of. P¢vii:lslcy Art.}.) Simllar results have-~ found in other sweli~ HcS well! (Ex.. 26-at-4 [Dr. Tomson Art.].) In 1995, Wallc.er's IQ was ~~d 1¢ 56; wl;rl.ch ~t~ in her diagnos1s of mild. mental retardation. (See 42 RR at i I~.) Walker's· "inteUec~ disabilltY is yet another factpr·~t inc~ her tisk of SUDI:P·· 3. TheCireiliDStan~es ofWa.lke.r's ~ijt ~re Iudi~.tiye ofSVlJ~P Du,ring the c:l~fe]lSe presentaQ()n at th~ guflt(itu:ioc~ce ph~ ot'trial, cargill took the stand to explain the events the pi$h1 of W~~'s 4~:• After revieWing CargUJ's testimony; Dr. Lha:too found that di~ ev~~ as d~bed by Carg11i an: indeed consist~~ with Ul~Y $.SpeC$ ofSUDJS;P. Cargill's description ofW~'s· seiz.ure is ~iSten~ with a de$Crlption of~ tonic..cJo~c s¢~e. (E.x~. 1 ~t 4 [Aft of Dr. L~tOO].) Cargill explairied that as s.he and Walk~ w~ ~tppped at a light ·and waitms to ~ @ tb" Intersection of Beckh~ Av~ue and Ho\lston Street 1rt tyler when Waiket began tQ .ha-ve a se_i~. W~~~ was· 4·'b~ging ~S~· the gl_8$S and the doot of the car'' as she c.onvulsed. (ld) This is co~ With the clonjc phas¢ of-~ ~¢n~i~ tonic- clonic epileptic seizure. (ld) During direct examinatio~+, ._Cargil.l ~ro~:t.ted that W~:tl~er's sei.zure las~e.d appro~dtru~~.iy q1;1e ~(.{ o~e-half' minute·s .. (/d'; 53 RR at 4_3.) Cargill d~cribed p~.ing ~~· ~' rtiililiilg to the passenger side, operung the passenger door, and Walker faillng oUt ofthe vehicle· onto the pavement. (Ex. J a~ 4 [Afi. of PI\ Lb~oo]; 53 RR ~t 43·.) W~~r's ~~re stopped within a few seconds of her hitting the ground. (Ex~ t at 4 [Aff. ofDr~ Lhat~o]; 53 RR at 44.) After briefly ·searching fat help, CargiU ret.Utne4 to Wal)cer. Ba:sed on Cargill's 33 46 •' ' • s~jilen~ tJ:W she tJl~ ''·flipped [Walker] .on h~ baclc. [to perform CPR]," it ~pp·~a(S· ~at Walk,er w~ i.IJ t).le pl'Q~J.f' (face down) position when het seiZure stOpped. (Ex. i ·at 4 [Aff. of Dr.. Lbat®J:; 53 RR at 44.) Cargill ~~ t.o resuscitate Walker, but Waiker was no longer breathing, not did she have a pulSe . (Ex. I at 4. [Are. of Dt. Lh~oo]; 53 AA. ·~~ 47.) Thi~ 'is ~.on~ist~m wj~ ~Y witness accoUnts of SUDEF., nam:ely that the dectased's· br@thing and heart ~¢tlvity stop wl~ii) a short while of cessation of a genetalized toriic-cloni.c seiiure. (Ex. 1 at 4· [Aff. of Dr. :Lhatoo].) Moreover, tho$e who di~ of SUDEP ~most often found in the prone position. (Jd.) Dr. Lhatoo surtunarizeS mhi$ report.: · Th.e ~~t., • provided by [Cargill] is consistent w~tl:t (~)a generalized tortic~cloriic eplleptic seiziite (the .·seizure type: most $"0ngly ~-s.ocj.~~ wir:h &l,JDEP); (b) wiiD~ accoun~ of stJbEP as pr~vided by ftiendslreiatives/acquainta.nces of SlJOEP Victims; namely that breathing and heart actiVity cease Wi~. a short while ($eem:tds ~ m,ir,l~~) of ces.s~on of a g~eralized toruc~lortic SE:izu.re, and (c) the position (prone) m~~ often asso.ciated with SUDEP. (Ex. 1 at-4 [AfL ofDr. Lhatoo]..) 4•. ·The Autopsy of Clieri'y Walker is qonsisteat with SUDEP In conducting Walker's a:U:tppsy, Dr~ Lann w$.5 un~Jble tc;J ~~bli,S].l·a s.p~inc cause. ofdeath.. (See swe~s Trial Ex.. 265.)' Dr. La:nn noted that the irijuries to the body were."minor'' and non-fatal. (51 RRat64-65, 73-75,·86, 102.) Nevertheles~ she d~.t~ined tba~ the .rna)mer of W~~e'r'$ Q~~ Wf#!. hom'Jc;id,al ~o]ence based 0~ ~e @~~c·~ of ~tt.J,ra.J. ~~. 1;he conditi~n in which the body was fo~d, and the fact tila.t Waiker had been ·reported as a ml'ssmg person. (/d. at 84-85.) While in no way ~9ncl~ive, Dr. Lann did ~Qte the presence· of p:etechial and confi~ent bemorrhag~ on the bulbar conjunctivae which she explaiined c:o:uld be consi.~nt with asphyxiatioJ:t. (/d. at 5S.) She Went on to n9te that the heinorrllages could alsa be explained by poStmortem changes to the early stage of decompOsition 47 • •• b.ased on tA~ posit,ionl,t~ of Walker's b<>dy-a factor wholly unrelated to Walk.-'s specific caU® of d@th. (See U:J. at 53-54;) After revlewmg··· the auto·psyrepo '• Lhatoo ·.· ·· ·· · rt of Dt; Unn, Dr; ······ .. that- the .... concludes .. absence Qf an ·i~.ntifiable ti>xicologi~ ()l' ~~~9uij~ c.a~~ of dea~ Is con.si'stent With SUDEP.~ (ex l a~ 7 [Afr. of Dr. Lhatool.J Moreover, ce$ip oftb~ Jijj(J,or injun~ ide.~ti~ by lP• .~$. d~ng tl:te autopsy were indicative of Walker ~ering ~ g~~~ ~omc-clo!Jic epileptic se·i,zure priar tO 'her ~tb, e$PeCWl)' col)s,idering Cargill's 4.escri~ion of ~e events that night. (/d. at 7-8.) Among those are the ~-al ~d contlu~t )l~q~es d_iscov~d OJ;~.~ bul~ corij~vae, minor in:jl¢es to Walker's head and face, a iliinor·iiiJmy to tb.e iJiside o~ Walker's mouth, •ci the,ptese·nce of puimoilary edema in.het lungs. Dr~ Lann n«ed that tit~· petechial ~ coniluent hen1orrh~C$ CQlllQ. be indicative of straitgUlatiort or the positioning of Walker's boqy P')s:tmortem. (Sl RR • 53.) ~ ~ the St,$. 4.$ec;l Or. J,.~'!,i $pecUlati.on regardlng the pete¢hiae as a way to suggest that Cargill had, in faet, cause Walket7 S d~th. (~e S(j RR at 43, 130.) Dr. i..hatoo notes, however, tJtat th~ petec:hi~ acm.al~y could be a.fll,rma:tive evjd~~ of a .sei.~,-e h,avin~ ~d... He s~tes, "'it should ~ noted that these are weil~escribed findings in autopsy 5enes of ,SlJDEP patients, are bel:ieved to be ~)J$~d by ~e stnd~ of a s~izure; ;;t,nd in themselves do not conti'ac:lict St1DEP a8 th.e ~~ of4~am~" (Ex. 1 ~~ 7 [Aft. off>r. (...h~l~) or~ Lm.m ~kn_owledged that th:e minor 'i~jurj~ t9 W~k.et~s he.aci ap~ fa¢e were not lif~threatenmg. (S 1 RR at 65.) Nevertheless; she found them to be sugg~tjv~ of I}.Q~cid,aJ Violence as the ~er of Walk~r's death•. (See State's Trial Ex. 265'.) Dr. Lhatoo explains that such injuries are quite common in those whe h,ave e~~~4. ij. tpnic-clo:t?-i~· se~ espectally mthe prone po~itjon. (Ex. 1 at 8 [Aff. ofDt. Lhawo.~ Ml:nor injUries to. the face .are consistent With "carpet bum"-=:-injw:ies to th~ no~, forehead,·~~ c.h.~l:dxm~s (h~ occur wh~ ~ p3;tjen~ 35' 48 • • exPefi.ence$ ~ wn.i~-clQljjc .seiZUre 41 ~e faee down pOsition. (Id) or. Lh•oo states, ''ThUs, in the event that the described injl,Uies occurred premort~, tb~e ·are consiStent with seiZiire related irtJWies ca.Used .by a fall ftom l:l small heigl¢. (c:ar •t) apd fri.~tion (~ few $e001:1d$ of zyii~hing/jerlcing on the ground in tbe pro11-e posit1on).n (/d) .. The minor ii:ljt.try to the inside left of Walker's motnh was also indi~~ye of haVing S\lffered a seiZUre. Injuri~s to the inside of th.e n~o~th, $u~h as biAAg of the tongue, lip ot cheek, ate eommon occumnces in those sufferin& from seizure:s and are ofum collSi~ $5.8(1~ by netii'Qlogj.~ ~Osi.r;tg sei.zures in practice. (Ex; 1 ~ 8 [Aft ofDr.. Lbatoo ].) It..is aiso of note that a microscopic exaiiiihation e>f Uie lungs ~ Walk~r·s autOpsy showed mod~rate pulmomuy edeJ;na. (Sta-te's Tn~ Ex:. 265~) PQJ.m:on.ary edema is the mast COirtiiibil autopsy finding ih SODEP c·ases~. (Ex.. 25' at 4 [Dr.. DeVinsk)'" M].) In one stti4y, pUli_n~ ~oJ1$estlQn ~d ege~ w~ n~ed at autOp~ in fony-two ofthe fifty:..tWo.stUdie:d SUDEP cases. (Ex..l at 8 [Aff. ofDt; Lhatoo].) This is tho·ught to be d.ue tQ selzute dJ:~harg" in the br.ai~ (1.4.) Th.e presert¢¢. of p:uli~t9P.Jey . ~.4.~• @4. ccmg~ot:J ~ .w~er's . ~~~Y s,y.gg~ -· •' ili.at she died of.SUDEP.. (ld.~ see also Ex... iS at 4 [Dr. DeVibslcy M.].) Aft~ mrj.ewing~ ~:uWJ>sy·reix>~ ~ Dr. ~'·s testiln~my, Dr~ Lha_too fi~ t;h;at '-'the evid.~c;e,js ·still consist~t wjtJI a 4.~~~ ofSDPJ3J> an4 ~e ~vi4ence to the contrary is . notsUfficieiitly corivmciilg." (EX. 1 at:8· [Aff. ofiJt. Uia~(JQ],) 5 •. Walker;s Death Is Likely to Have Been a SUDEP Death Based on his· review of the tb.ll cotnplernent. of Walker's me:dic.al records provided through discovery, Dr. Laiiii's autops}r report, and the·testhnony ofLa:nn, Ulrich, and C~ll, Dr: ibatoo is "of the oplrtion th:at Cherty Wall~er'$ d~ath is likely to have been a StiDEP death.'' re.~. J at 9 [A.f.~ of~; Lhatoo].) In support 49 • • of that con:clLisioil, Dr. Lhatoo checks off each of the detinltfoni:il el¢m¢rits of" S{)DEP that aJ"e m~ in-thi.s case. (l.tt $.! 7:.) Walkef.s death was·sudden and un_~~· It w~ wi~~~ by Cargill and $ppears to have occurred while Walk~ ..\V~ in the· prone ~i-~00.- A~ the· ~$pSy·; . tb~re. ~ i;tsuffic~e- traun;ra to cont:nutict the possibility that Wa.U~:er'$'WP~~ n9rt~~ti~~ It was cle~ly a non.,;drowning death. Walker,s· medical records ~d fot:n:t~ neurologi~ co~ th!it she suffered ~epilepsy. Th~re i~ eVidence ~ Walker ~xpe'Ji'~ced a se~e on the night of June 18, .201 o bOth throUgh C~giil's testiro9ny ~d ~e mhlor·lnJwies tO Walker.'s head, face, and mo1ith)9 At iiQ pointwas thete: any eVi4ence of Wa.J.~er ex:periencirig st$5. eplle¢~ wb.icb ·1s a condition in whiCh the brain iS In a .state of pet5iSten.t seiZUre. Finallyl' Waiker's autopsy revealed no toxicological or anatomical cause of death. "ThuS;'' Dr: Lhatoo con.cludest "in the abs~~ of an 'id.~ntjfia,ble tQ,dcol~gical ·or aruttomicai ca~ of dea~ Ch~rry Waiker's d~th is li~ly to. have been a SUDEP d~J..m:. 1 ~~ot xd~t.ify ·~ c~~ic_tjol) ~0 this in the ~sti.m.o_ny pro:vi4~ by U:l~ . defendant md the testimony provided b)' th~_medi~ ~~--~ (E.~ 1 at 7 [A.ff:.. of Dr. Lhatoo.) C. I_.efJ'eedV·e As:sis•-.ee of'Tri,l Cou..sel Aii hi.effective assistance of counsel claipl requites a .shoWing tha~ trial counsel's perfonilance w~ defici~nt ·~d t,bat. the 4eficiency pre)udi~d CargilL. Even asswning for the sake ofarguinem that. Walker was selziire-~ and 19 that. Dr.. Karlamptizha' s medical records are.inaccurate7 tt Should be· neted that iii a weil~known .Stuczy of nine patients of SUDEP, one pa~c;n~ bad 1>een ~izure free. (Ex.. 1 at S [Aff. of Dr; Lh,at®J.) Ano:therwell-known ~dy ofSUDEP pubU.sb~ in The Lancet medica) jo\imaf found that five of the fifty-seven SliDEP patleJ:Its $lYd.ied ha4 between zero and two seizUtes in the previous year. (Id.) This suggests tha.t SUDEP can occur even in thos.e patients who are ostertsibly s~izure free er have rel~ively·mj_l4 epi_lepsy with il,lfi-equ~ts¢lZwe.s~ (/d.) 37 50 • • . . ' .364 s.W.3d at. 88-3. ln order to meet the . . . . ···' 466 U.S... at. 687~'. Jimenez· Strickland def::idency requirement, Cargiil must show that her ®~l's t~.entanQn feU below an objective- standard of reasonableness. Strickland, 466 u.s . at.688. The rea.sonablen~ of counsel's perforrij,ar.ce 1.s m~~ured by the prevailii,lg professional nonns at.the time: of trial a:s ret1ected gUidelines, sucll as the.Am;erican Bar Association standards. Jd to establish prejudice, Cargill must show a "'rea:.s~;na,ble probabiUcy ~ btJt fQr coUA$e1'$ ~professional erro~, the~~ of the ptOceeding would have been ditfei'eilt." /d. at 694; Thompson, 9 S.:W.3.d at 812. investigation and preparation are the keys· to effective representation. While trial counsel need not investigate "frivolous, impia:u.sfble, or meritless defenses," United SUites v.. Carr, 740 F~2d 3.39, 349 (Sth Cjr-,.1984), ®unsel m~tengage in,a reasonable .amoliht. of pretrla.l investigation. and make an independent investigation of tbe ~t;s and circpmsf:Bl?.~s i~vQ,ved in the C$Se •. Jl.Ufrl.ijtell v. Estelle, 590 P..2d 103, 104· (Sth ~ir. 1979); Brycmt v. Sc.ott, 2.8 F.3d 1411~ 1415 (5th Cir. i994); see a~$() Gomez v.· Bet.o, 462 f..2d 596', 59'7 (5th Cir. 1972) ("when a defense c:oimsei f~jls to i;ny.e$;igate hjs client':s only . PQ$.Sible clefen.~~ although rc;.q~"-$.te4 . . tp do so by hitn; and fajl$ to sllbpo~ wi.tne:sses il) sopport of the ~fense, it. c.an hardly be said~ tbe d~fen4ant bas l:la9 the·~ffectiye ~istance·ofcowtSei."). Trial C;Otmsel h:Ss- a ®cy wcons~d~. and i,nv~tjga~~ ~h~ ba,Si.s for al_l p()s.sible le~ ~lai.ms ~~ w present them as fotcefulty as possible. ABA Guidelines, GUideline 10:8; se.e also (d at cllit: ("Because of the· poss)bility that the client will be· sentenced to death, . COWJSel ~~ be signi.fi~~y IlJQre vigi.I~~ ·~.bou~ l.i~_igajj.I)g ~1 potenP,al is$.Ues· aJ all levels in·a capital ca.se th:ap ·i,n @Y otl1er c.ase").. ~pert witn@'s·tes.tiinony is one ofthe most powerfui t~ols ·~ an attomet s dtspGs~ ~o pres¢nt. a cot;npelling <;:l~ro,. Coble v... State, 330 S~W.3d 2J3, 281 (Tex. Crim.. App. iO 10). 51 • • in this c~se, tri.al cotm~l fa.\1.~ to take ~v@~~ of that. opportunity. · .-···t-·l·t·.s ttt-'al counse Cargt ·· ·· · · 1 was •· ·"'-· ·••: · tror failmg'· to call an expe·rt with · · ·· meuecwve .. an .. . actual . . .. wQrl.Q.:t)g kpowledge of · StJbEP who coUld provide the jury with a ptedse expltmation of the disorder itself, a description of the kind Qfindividu;als who ~ part.lcutatiy wlnetable to it, and an explanation for why it was more likely than n:ot that Walker did i.n ~t die ofSUDEP aiJ.d 1.10t.l)oinicidai violence. 1. Trial Counsd's Failure to CaD aa Exp:ert·like Dr. Samde.u. Lhatoo C~n:s:fitut~ De(jden• PerfonD:•r,e~ · J3y p:Ul:ting · Cargijl on the· stand as the defense's operiing Witn~s at the guiltlinno:cence pha~, trial e.ounsel made clear their intentions· to ancb~r tbeir ~e with Cargill's acco:unt of what hapPmed on the n:ight of June 18, .2010. Cargill nm.Clenxl U\¢. v~ ro~jofi:tr ofthe s~~s ca$e-irl-c.hiefmoot by·p·~~ing b.ers¢l.f'wj:tb Walker on the nigl:lt ih question. However; it was her explanation of what ~u:~pp¢ned i,n a few· shQrt n:Unutes that would deeid~ her fate. before the jury. Cqill eJqllain'ed dlat ·walket had di~d un~~:dly following a brief~ ~ C~ll ~ driving b~ home. Cargill was not able to. detihitively explain hoW Walker J);lj$b~ h.~ve Qj~d frQJ;r) ~ ~i.?J,U"e ~ nmin~ed tl:tal sb~ ~ I)O~ lti.Ued Wai~er. Aft~r hpurs o( ~~~x.~U:J:Q.~pn frQn.~ th~ Sta~, tb~ wltn~es, t:tOIJ.e ofwh.m:n were ~le w t~fy to })ow W.@lk¢r ti:iigh:t ~ve cUed.. Tb~ deferi,se ih~ r~e.d i~ ~e, bavi,n~ wh.olly tailed tO supp()rt Cargill's teStimony and explain. how it was even pe5Sfhle.. 20 ~0 There· we~ other thingS trial coUnSel could have done to co)ibborate Cargl.ll's testimony. For exampl~, the State cl_lallenged. C~gi)l'$ expl;mation UJ.a~ sb.e lqlpcke.d 011 do:or:s ~~ tb.e: ~p;mro~n~ ~mplex b~t no on.e responded·. (See· 54 RR s at 18~) The dooi'S at Wiiker' apartment con:tple~ were unique by vi$e of th.~ fact that ~:ch individu:al apartment. ha:d its own front door that ·Jo:cked, a stnall patio, an 52 •• • It wm; OlllY dWjng the State's rebuttal that trial ®uiiSel intro:du¢e4 the p~ssibiliey that Walter die.d of SUDEP. Tbis w~ ad~ 4uf.il)g rb~ cro~ ·· · · .......+:· · of Dt. . Richard Ulrich, USl,Ilg ·· an internet ·arficie that . .counsel . . . .. had 4 exanu.-""J.on . ... printed fro~ a JJ;le4.ic:al websj~~- ~ 31 [Medscape Art. on St]i)EP].) Couns~i~s efforts were limited to estabHsbing c.ertaili ri'sk fact~rs for ~i'zures and ~l:owi~g Dr. Ulrich to provtde an inac.C;Unrte and misleadin$ acco)J.tlt of St.IDEP. By the time Dr.. Ulti,ch l~tt· t)le ~4, tbe jury }Wd ~ left wjth the i.mpressjOJ:l trnrt SUDEP was "very., very rare.." (55 RR at 24.) Desplte ·the incoherenc~· of Dr:. Ulrich's ~lalia.tiOr) of SUDEP on the standl~ C()unsei did hot challenge him .. InStead, eounselrefemd tp the phenomeQon aS a "medic;al myst.ezy." (/d.~~ 2S.) Counsel's failure to develop SUDEP as a plaU$ible explanation fo'r W8lket' s d.e.ath ~ only be ¢,e ~~ of an unre.~ble p~tria.I ·btve:stigadon. the· f~ that COlillSel used the M~ article .during· its cross-ex~tiOJ) QfOr: m.ri~h $h~ws thal they were, at the 'very l~ a~ of SUDEP. Counsel mUst ~ye noted Ul~ Walk.~· ane.t the exa.ct defurition of SUI?EP ·$.s li.ste.cJ "in the M~dsc::~ a,Tticle;· tJuit W~':s au~sy was CQnsi~t-with a SUDEP autopsy,, inclu:ding n~ ca:use ef4~ and evid~ce of J;J)od~~~ p~lrniJJ:lao' ec;l~n:ta; .and 1;h_~ W~~er gJ.et s~eral of the l~ ri.sk factors, ii.l~ludi.ng· ra~~; m~~~ re~QJ), s~~ type, antiepileptic-drug. polytherapy, m,d w~ jut oa.rt,$i~e t,Jl~ C()~o~;t ~e ~ge. @t·. 31 [Med.Scape Art. on SliDEP).) Considerliig that counsel believed the condition to be ~e.ry, very~," they shqul4 hav~ oo!l~ted ~o~eone ·wl,o specj.aliied 1.n t:he· ~oc.ki.J.1g or po~~g ~n tlt~ h~vy ot4.sjde wooden door. Tti~ counsel should have pfilvided the juiy with photographs of how the individUal apartment doors looked to torroborate Ca.rgilJ's eJ.(pl~~i.o.n of how~ wlty it. w.a.s re8$011~ble th~• no one respopded to .1_1~ ~Ql~~g. (See~~.· 3S [Ph,otogt¥1,. of Walke~'s Outer DoqrJ.) · . · il See Claim One(B)(l), ante, .fot the. aeruaJ. definition <>f SUDEP and an expl_ana~on of it:s lll~~hm.isl)l.$. 40 53 • •• tJel4.. T,h..e ~~ place to look might ·have· been the· list. of expert authors· of the tbiJ.'ty•fjve schQlarly 3Jtjcles cited In tbe Medsc~ prmt91,1t. !lad co~l don~ so, they might have coriSulted With Dr~ Lhatoo, listed In the fifth fOo.tnote of th.e ~cle~ Walker's death eXhibited simply tO.o. many cc;;nsistencies with SUDEP for oounsei tO abandOn it as a theory and leave Cargilrs te$timo'Qy unc·oiTQb()~ ·or to ~ly on the opinion of a genetal i:leurologist. presen~ by tl;J.e Sta~ OIJ. ~butt::;d. Counsel should have consulted With an ex-pert in the area of SUDEP ·as part oftheir inv~stigation lmo Carsi.l.l'·s op,ly JX)$$ible d~f~ b~ed o~ her accc)UD.t of the events.. See GJmez, 462 F.. 2d at :597.. Had counsel elicite:d an indiVidualized. opiiilon frOm an expert on whether. thiS case was consistent With SUDEP based. on Walk~'~ medical records provi In or~er· tp estapHsh prejudi'ce.; Car$ill ro~ ~ll~w ~t a ~gle Juror would have voted d'iifetently but f9f'coun.~f~s deficient performance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. ~n rt:i~~~ ~ d¢4!rmin.a:tjon, the Court ~~ces ~e ~ti.ng evidence of Cargill'$ g\lilt ~nst the evi'denc~ thaJ c:ounsel failed to present. See Str~#llJI.d.. 46.6 U.S •. at 696 ("a yetd.fct or concl.usion only W.~ly· suppottef:i by t}te reco.rd i:s more li.kely to ~ve been affect«t by errors tha.t on·e with overwhelming record support''). 54 • • Th.~ S~~~f.$· ~ 4!!ri~ tl;t~ gujlt/~ocence- phase of Cargili;s ·mat was ~~~~b· we* for a ~pital murii~t ~Q_tiVjc:tion.~ The vast m~jc>rity of th~ witn~ses that were pres·ented testified to IJiattetS that tUm.ed out to be moo.t one~ Car.gi_l) t~ol¢ the st.~; n.$.tt:l~ly, ~~tnptirig to plaee CMgiU and Walker tQgeth~·on tile n)ght in- queStion. The balan~ te-stified" to -CatgHl's purpc;uted mo#ve for tb~ crime ..... _,- and ... - the -· State . .. . . finished . .... . its .. case-in-chief . b.y p·. ·resenting Dr. L ~- · . who cqncbl.~«< W~~r~s ~:U~Pl?Y ~ ultit:r!ately te$tlfled tb~ a ¢apse of d~ coUld not be e$tabiished-. Dr~ Lann p~il:l~Q. o~ ce$hl ipJqtjes to Walker that might be lndi_c_atjv.e of bomiei.:le,- "b\Jt ~f\llly ~:nd~4 U.e; jl.U'_Y ~~ she coi,lld not be .... ····· of certain . .. their ... ... cause. . - - . Ultimatel .. was. the absence of natUral dl~ase " _y,- it . ~d the CO.Q,4.i~9n of w~~~r'-~ body th,at- led Dr. i.ann tO conClude it. was a case of b,o;mici~ V.ioJence. That COlq)Jed wi~ th~- n•· C6iitplete l_ack of al~~-aQ_ve · lanatioo e.."P .. ... ... . . for :·· · ti. y· led to· . . . death. a·pparen . . Walker's the Jury O,J vetd.l~t.. Trial ·· ·· ·• . 's g·uilru coun~:el's AA}y ~~~pt to a4dfes$ the ~swere4 ~e of ~th qt;Lestiort was• a relatively brief ~xaiil.inatio11 of a geneial ne:Utologl$~. who. clearly did not underst,and StibEP-. the coneept of--St.IDEP was- significantly uftdetdeV.elop¢d as a reSUlt, and the Jlii)' was aslied to vote ·:'nm gliflt)''; ·on the bas~ c>f flee~ng references to a "·very, vety tate;' coildltlon that was described as nothiiig.more than -~ ~n:tedjcal rnyst,ery.;, Ol,ujng cl~)sjl:ig argurnems, the Staw l;iighligllt~_ tri;:JJ counset·s· f~ilUJ:e t.o prese_n~ affl.~liv~, rel.i~le evj@.pee t() $1:i~~11' ~e ~erti_OQ ~ Walke): died of' Sl)DEP~ The State ren_1inded thejury that Dr. Ulrich had never known_an'yorie to dJe ofa,se~t,l;te befo~, d)d rt_ot bel)¢Ve Wa,Ik~ c,{ieq of~:$¢~, an4 -~ Walker's ·· Hkelfhood from dying of:a.seizUte was notttHfererit tlian anyone else'~ (56 RR ~t 4748, 97.) rhe-S~~ rep~a~~l_y ~~ed: tb~ C~gi.ll w~ th~op.ly per$0n clai.nti.ng tb~~ Walker ha4 a seiZJJte on the ii_igbt i_n question, and tbat her word was belied by ~h~ testim(my of tt,:~ed_i~-;;U profession$. (56 AA at: 4.2, 49, 55-~) FVtally,- ¢e. State 42 55 • • d.,rove bol;ll~ the point that no ope· other than Cargi'ii had. said. that Walker died of a s:e·izute. On~ prosecutOr argued, ''Yc,lu teU me where the e:viQ.ence Qf a sei~ is. TJtat's a iie, another one of [catgill's] iies, like every other one. ~ .. Bas.ed on. what7 Not tf?.e D'l~cal evidence.." (5.6 RR a~·gs~) The~~e prosecutor continued tb argue regar4J.ng· the .~ei:ture, "Who have, we he:ard that from? ~t liar over there." (Jd. at 99.) Aiid, again, "What. eVidence do you have of a seizure? That fiat's word." (Id at 103,) Near the ~ of i~. ~lt/iAn'~n~e ph~ closing argumen~, the s~~ left the jury with the folloWing cOri'irtleilt o:n C.a:rgill '.s def:ense: "[S]he's· got this \JJJ.believ~l~ ~CJ.l'Y. ~~ ~ dJ.SgJJlC~ tQ pe0pl~ who teaily have epfl.epsy ~d seii';i.®.s ~4 ~- g9 tb.ro.u~ tha.t ~" -(/d. at l23.) Cargill was- le~wit:b l.iffi.f! to ~e; as it ~ true that ootiilsel had tafled tO proVide medical eviden~ tg corro~ ·her· testimony. f:iowever-, counsel couid have, and should have, presented the. jliij' with the co~pelling ~d essenti~ testimony Qf Or. LhafPo r~g&rd~g t}t¢ ~e prevalence of SUDEP in the" epilepsy popUlation and the faCtors of this case that. are. ®risistent. with the coz:a ~own fort:J;l of h~tnicida.l viol~ce... Trial. co.u:P,sel '.s failure to call ~ SUDEP expert constitutes Ineffective assistance, prejudicing Cargill's rights under the State ~:9 (~qal. Co~tJMioliS,.$~~ Sli.t~tocy l.~W; ~d Urt_i~ed. S~tes Supreme Co.urt and .state case law.. As :a.tesuJt, Cargill's conviction and resulting death sentence mu·st bereve~. 56 • • CUil\fTWO TRIAL COUNSEL WERE iNEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING 1'0 dBJEcr T() VIctlM IMJIA.Cf ~VUJENCE P~:S:&.NTED JllURING THE· GUILTIINNOCtN~ PllASE OF TRIAL ~g the guiltllnnocence: phase of Cargill's trlal, the·. State presented twO witne8Ses· ~ho offered a sigrtjfican.t amount of tesWnony ittel.ev~t ·to Cargill's alleged criminal tespoiiSibiiity. Chmy Walker's stepm:other and ·boylijend testlfie4 ~bou~ -a range. 9f toples. that can oniy be classified as vie:tim iiJtpa~~ evidence, meludilig disc)iSSion ofVialker spending her last Chri.s.PnS$ ·al.oD;e,- h~ hobby of collecting .stUffed aiiiittals, and the location of her grave.. Cargill's trial couns.el repe.atedly failed to obj~ thus 3.11Qwi,ng th.e juey to h.- ~ ~~iVe a:mou:nt.ofirrelevant-and preJudicial testimony. Trial ®unsel's failure tQ object t9 this testimony constitutes lrieftective· 8$S.iS.tance, prejudicing Catgill;s ij~ts ~ the state and federal Con.stiwti(ms, state $lt:utorY law, and Un.ited S~ S~~ CoUrt aiid State case.Ia:w. Accordingly, Cargill's conViction sho:uld. b~ rev~ed. A. Tris,ll CooD_s~l HI\IS ~ DlJ,ty to Pre~rve ~rro.D" by Ma~~g Pro~.r Objections An ineffective as$istance of cQllij$el clai¢. requires a shtrwijiS ~ ~ counseP.s petfotm:ance 'Was, defiCient and that the deficiency ptejudiced Cargill, Strickland, 466. U.S. at 6_87; Jimenez, 3.64 S_.W.Jd at 883. In o_rd_er.. to m.e.e.t th~ d_efi:c;i.~cy req~j~m~~. C~ll IDJl~· ~how ~ h~r coWt.sel' $ represcm~.OJ:l fe.li below .an objec.~ve sfal:ldard of rea:s~:n1~Ie~ess. $tr.icklqnd, 466 U.S. at 6.88. The reasonableness of counsel's performance -is mea5lired by the prevailing prof~ssional norm_s,at the t4ne of·trial aS reflected gtiidelines, S\lch a:s the· American Bar Association standards. Jd To establish prejudice, Cargill must show a ':'~o~ble p,O~bHity tb.at; b~ for counsei's unprofession.~ env~, tbe resuit ef 57 • • the· proceeding would have been different.'' Id. at 694~ Tho;,;pso~ 9 S.W.3d at 8l2~ ' Trial counsel h3;8 a ~· tP objec:t to in.ad.m(s.s.ibl~ evi_d~~e or iroP.roper argument and estabiish a record reflectiilg advet;e ndfup ·hY the. cQurt. See ABA ~Jdelin.e."s, Owdeline 10.8, c)n~~ ('!One of tbe mo~ fund~en~ dJ.~ties o.t an attorney defending a capital ease at trial is the preservation of any apd all conceivable ert'()rs for each stage of appellate and post""conyiellon reVieW ~ . -:"); ABA Standards for Criminal. Justice, Defense.Fzqzctian, 4.-7.l(d) ('·'d.efen~ co~l has a dUty to have· the record reflect adverse. tulings""). Ii1 order to establiSh that counsel was ineffl;'ctive for fajlbig to obj~ Cargill m~t s.how·tb~l th~-triQJ judge wo.o.ld have committed error had the objection been inade and overruled. Ex pane Martinez·; 330 S.W..3d 891·; 901 (Tex. Crim·. App. 2011). B. Victim Impa-ct· Evid~nee is laa:d.mfslji,Jl' dJJriJII the GlJ.iiV!-..nqceaee Pb•e·ofTrial "Vietim impact" ·eVidence is testimony "aboUt the Vicfuil: and about the imp.~t of the murder on the vict,im's fami'ly••• /' Payne v. Teitiressee·; SOl U.S .. 808, ·82_7 .( 199l).. ln Payne, th~ Supreme. Court lifted tbe ~ a.e bar against vi'Ctim Impact evidence under the E~ghth Airiendmertt and delegated the decision to the States ... &S.t6 ..Whether . . . to' admit suCh evidence ............. at sentencm _ ....... .. Id Since the..n, ,,._g.. victim im:pact. evidence has· been found to be generally ~$lble d)lilng tp.e se.rn~ci~a ph~ of~ ~ bec~use ~vi~~flce oOI:le .spec_i:f'jc ~ ca:u,s~ by-tb.~ d.ef~d#n~ ~Y assist the jury 1.n assessing the· defendant's moral culpability and blameworthiness. Ford v. $tate, 919 8~.W.2d 107, 114 (Tex.. Crhn. App. 1996) (citing J'qyne, SOl U.S~ at.825). Howevet, victi.tn imp~t evidence i~ Qot . .lssfble dunng the guiit phase of a criminal ~·aJ because it fails to meet the ~levancy requiren,t.ents under the evj.4~~-~~ ~Jes. Vi'cnm impa~ evi4en.ce. 49e.s not h~v~ '~:my t~dency to rnak.e 45' . ···-· ....... -- - . . 58 • • . more or le.$s· prob&JJle th~ e:xisten~e of ~Y {a~t Qf cQ~sequ:en.ce ~the guilt st.age:·of triat~" Mil.ler-El v;. &.ate, 78:2 s_.W~24 &9.2, 895 (Te~. Cri:nt. App. 19:90) (cirJng TEX. ..... R.· . . :Evro. - .Cit - Rule . -·-·-- 401 . for. .. findln .. the .. - ViCtim ------· _g that .... - im act evidence .. P.-- . .. . . is. itrelevarit - . - - at th~ gWltftM()ctm,c.t: p~e). As·,:):ot.ed. i.n Mos~ly-v. Stg.Je, vicPm il_llP~t ~i~~ i~ relevai;lt only ~~ ~ i~ r~lates to the mitipUon spee~al issu~ at ~ent beqause that part.i~~M ~~sue gre~y broad.eJ;lS. t,h~ scope· of relev~~ evideri~. 983 S.W.2d 249, 263 (Tex. Crli:n.. App. 199-8). However, victiin iinpac.t evidence 'is ''patentiy 'irreievant'' te other issues at tdal, even InclUding the. futUre da:qgerrili$ness j.$su¢.at pUnishment. Id. c. trial Co11nsel .Failed to O~ject to the Victim Impact Testimony of WaJ~r's St~p~otla~r as I~lev~Q.t During· the guil:tflimocen® phase of Cargill's tria4 the- State called as a wit~J~s Wal.k~'s st~other; Rueon Walker.22 Over the co~. of n.~;Y fifty pages of ~sti¢~ijy; Rt.Ieon $pO~e elt~.ive_ly abo~t C~lJ"Y'·s Uvi4g si~o~ re_l.at_ioq$ip Wj_t;h JQsepb Mayo, ~4 oth,er topi~ tb~~ b~ nQ ten~cy ~ n:aake mote or less pri>tiable the existence of -~Y. fact- of consequence at the guilt/mnoc·ence .stage of Cargill's triaL Shortly after Rueon took the stand, the Sta~ eUcited ~roany that Cb·erry .rnad spent. Chri$Un.a5 of 2009 alone, rather than With her family. (49 RR at 146.) Rueon recalled that Chetty·\isu:ally came home for Chri_$11aS,- and Rueoil would often bak.e a strawberry cake for h~r. (Id.) The State wen~ on fu cl~fy, '·'$o . ~ . he.r l~ C)lris~ was spent alone in her home~ (!d.) Rueon ®nfume:d that that was true and trial c:oW:i.Sel failed to object tO the p· atentl -· ... Y irrelevant .. ---- - _y,. which .. - .·- testhtlon . . oiily to tilg at the hea:rtStrifigs of was offered the jury-. (J.d) N~"'t, ~~ ~pl_aiJ.J.e4 ~~ Ch_t;ey AA.d 4;b,Qsen ~~ ap_artmen~ where she Jived be¢ause it was cl_ose to~ pj_~ restaurant:. (Id at 151.) She also testified 22 Because Cherry Walker ~d Rueor:.a Walk~r sha,re the ~e 1.~ ~am-~; th.e_ir first names only will b:e l,l;Sed (or tb~ re_m_Q.il)der of Claim Two. 4.6 59 • • ~t 9n:e o.f Cherry's hobbieS was eollecth'lg stWfed ~. (/d.) Despite the State's Uitent to eHdt irrelevant testimo~y to paint Cherry as a simplistic ®d sympa~h~(i:c vic(im, trl~ counsel again failed to ebje¢t. Rueon also· testified about Cherry'·s biologi_caJ motb.er 4ying of ~cer, . ¢herzy's varlotis options: on where to live once .she chose to leave her p~ts~ house, and ev·en the loca#on ofChe:rry's gra..ve. (50 RR. at 7~.) Ru~on then Weil~ into an eX.terided discusSion of Cherry's relationship With Jqseph Mayo_,; She d<'scnbe.d a photogr¥.h of the ¢uple ~was hung iii CherrY's apartinent, noting th.at Mayo was white and "a t:ittle slow." (ld $t testifie. been done. the· jury had been exposed to numerous racts that had no bearing on C.ar~ll's guilt or ll:m~nce., an4 gCJJ.er~Uy t~ded t9 ~nft:zse the is.sue$ for the j~ry·. The State freely elicited Irrelevant testimony reganfi~g Chetcyi's b~kgrou,.d, h¢r relationship with .Joseph Mayo,. h~r hobbies, and. the Ioc.ation of her .~y~. 60 • • .Rueon~s victim 'impact ~ony tailed to 11,'1~ the ~~l.evalicy reqUirement of T~as R~e 40J ~~~r (!l~ly e~bl_isb~ s~ ·an.d fede:ral c~~w. See Payne., 501 l).S.• ~ $2S; M.~e{V,-983 .S.W.2d at 263; Ford, 919 S~W.2d ·at 114; Miller-EJ, 782 S.\V.2d ~~ 895:• The= tri~ ~urt l,:il'lted:~ much when 'it sUstained trial counsel's obje:~on to vi~~ impa~ evid~ce toward the end ofRueori~s testiin9Py. (5_0 ~ at 31.) Trial coun5e.l's ~ll#e to obj~et. earl_1C2" to th~ ~ssible··testimony and :at least pres~~- th~ i~s:u·e- (qr· ~ ~~d 4~6n by neXt call~ Joseph Mayo to the stand. Mayo, Wh¢ bad previously been descnbed tO the jury as "a.l1ttie .slow" offered very little testimo~y relevant: to the guih or innocence ofCqill~ Asid.e ftoJn a few li.l!es confll"ming hi_s ·alibi for the evening of Jl.ille 18, 2010, ~yo primarily spoke about his bQnd with Cherry ~d how their fan:ll'lies felt ·about their Interracial relati~nship. Mayo began by talking about how Cherry "loved $.c:ary movies" and be was afraid ofthern.. (~0 RR at 49.) He tatJ,ced spe_cifically about the moyie "P.aranonnal Acti,vi~;_, a,n4lw.w he believed the footage in the film was real. _(Id. at. SO~) The State capitalized oil fue op}X;l$.Jijty to c.l~t}' tl'mt fu~ t!;1~-five yew--old :Mayo actually believed tha~ .the scary movie was real, askb:l$ "Yo:u thought it was real?" and following up with "You thotigh~-i~ w~e-~a_l Vi and provide the jury w1th a. Che·rry-llke figure with which to relate; trial co\Jnsel 61 • • fall~d. 1;o o[?j~ Unch~e this point did trial cou.nselohject tO this irrelevant.testitno}1y.. OUt~ ~·the briefdisc~ion of Mayo's alibi on the night ofthe ineident, hls testimony focused on issues. that. were entirely irrelevaJ~t t_o Cqill.'s .sujlt or lnnoc~n.c~ ofthe ·~ri111e it) q~~oft. As tbe trial court had SUsta:]ned trial counsel's objecti9n to the vi.ctim i111p·~t tes~imony of tb.e 'immediately pre.ceding witnesS, ~Qw;as~l ~~ould J:t~ve beer) ~w~ tha~ th.e co~rt w~ wi1l:iQ.g to prevent such 49 62 • • inadmissable . . .. testnnon . ... y .. .g P..laced frOm bein . . before the · .. _·. Ne.ve.rtheless, counsel ... Jury did not obj~. a.ftet e·ach frteJeVatrt. stOry' w~ · intrQdJ,Jced, thus precluc;ting aey possibil'ity ofreiief'on the·issue·on direct appeal. E.• Cargill ·was Prejudieed by Trial Cou-.s.et's Failure t9 O.bject ~~ Jrrelev3.nt T~t.iDJony a.nd Preserve :J.:iTf)r {or Appeal There is a reasonable probability that if trial co~l had objected ~~ly tp tb~ ~iv~· ··~01Jllt of victim 'impact evi~ence that the - was eli.~itil).g from .Rlieon Walker and Joseph ·Mayo at the gt,liltl'timoctmce phase of C~:U's ~al m.. U1e oU;tcome of the trial woufd have been different. The evidence .suPJ'Qrting the jury's guilty verdi~ was tenuous to s_ay the least.. Th,e medi((a,l e~er ~ ~~ even able to. ideriti.fy the callse of Cherry Walker's death. While evidence that ' C~ll ~ded ~o d'ilp;lp Cherry'·s body was suspicious, she tpok the $!and to thoroughly explain her rea:s:onin:g. With such limit~ evidence tba~ Qrep:y djec;l of homicide; the: State's b~ ch~ce at s.~urlng a conyiC{iQ:g. of ~U w• to create a strong. sense o.f ·sym.patby for an innocen~ victim~ The S~e c{id this by ~ljciti.~ testimony regarding Cherry;s intelle<:.twil d~s.ability, her cbil4like hobPi¢s, ~d ~e imp@Ct ~t b~ ~n.~dden ~ea~ h~ OI;l b~· friends and fantily. Th~ introd~ctl9il of such irrelevant eVidenc:e· at the guilt phase unfairly preju4ice4 Cargj.ll ancl COIJ.t\1$~d the Issues far the j~~ C~msid_erirtg the ~lative w~~ o.f t;he S~'s «;vi4~ce of gui.l~, tb.~ i~ ·a ~Ol)ap_le prob~piJity tP,~~ the r~$W~ of CargiWs trial would ha:ve been different had the jucy not been. p~sented With e~e~lve c;mQ~on~y- . driven evidence. Counsel's deficient. perfotinance prejudiced Cargill in viol_ation of her rig):J.ts 1,1llder the state' and ·ted¢ral Constitutions, state statutory law, ~4 lJ.nite 63 • •• CLAIM 1'111u:.l; tlllAL COUNSEL WER.E.INEFFECTIVE FOR FAlLlNG TO om·q TO JMPROP~R L.AV TESTI)IONY BY ~RENDA WHITAKER DuRiNG THE GUILTIINNOCENCE. PHASE OF TRIAL DUring the guilt/inno®nce p• of Cargill '·s trilJ.), defe,ll$e co~l ~all~ caseWorker· Brenda. Whitaker to testify that She was aware thJ:t W~~ w~ babysitting cbilc;lren; Wa.ll 64 ... • S/fil:.~ 466 U..S~ ~ 6.87; Jim~ez; .364 S.W.Jd at 883. To establi.sh defiCien¢y,. m'ust show that her counsel's representation fell beiow a:n objective Cargiil st~dwd of re~ieness. Strickland, 46.6 U.S. at. 688. the i"easoilableneSs of coUp:sel '·s ~o~~ is measm-ed by the prevailing profes$iot.:al non.t)S 1¢ th~ tim~ of t:r.i.~ as reflected 1n the Amencan Bar Association Staiidaids and the like.. Itt To ~~P~ ~judice, cargiil muSt show 3 "re.aso!Wble· proQa.PUity ~ but. for couns~i·s unprofe~s.i~IW eqor5, ~e result of the proceeding woUld haVe been differeo~r I_d. ~- 694; Th071JJJ,80~, 9 s:~w~Jd ~ 812. Trial. CO\IJASel ~ ~ <;hlcy to object to m.a:dm:issible evidence or- improper ~eiJ.t ~4 e.$~1.i.~b a rec:orq reti~~g ~dverse, rulings by the oourt. See ABA Guidelines, Guidelin~ 10:8, cmt~ ("One of the mo~ fun~ental dut,ies of~ a~omey defen~g ·a capital we· at trial fs the preservation of any and all conceivable errors fQi' eaeh sta$e of appefl~te -~d pos~-con:vi~on review . . ·."); ABA g+...-...,J wu.&wuWJ ..--.J- fl·· or-Criminal 1·.us · ti'ce.,. · · IJe#. t:'itncti · · 1;', . :~ense • · ·· 4-7.1(d) ("defi.~ onr · · co . ~.1 has ·a dUty to have the· record refleCt adverse rulings'') .. martier to establish that colu1sef was 1neffe.ctive for .. fa.iiing to. obJect, Cargill mUst $how th.at the trial judge . would. have ooritr.i:lltted error had the objeCtion been made arid ovetru.led.. Milrlin.ez, 33.0 S.W.3d at 901. 1. Limitation oil Lay Witness Opinions Under Texas Rule of Ey}den¢ 7()1., a l~y wltn~ss may offer ophiions or ln.fenm;ce$ S:O l~mg ~· tbey. (1) ~- l.in.tiled ~c) tho~ whi.ch ~ ~~all;y b~c;i OJ:! the wimess'.s pereeption, and (2) w9~d be helpful to d.tejury i_n cozning to~ clear understan~g of the Witness's testimony or the determination of a fact that 1s iri issu~. Faitow v.. State, 943 S'.W.2d 895, 898 (Tex. Crim.. App. 1991).. ln order tp meet the first requirement; it must be eStablished that the wittless has personal 'knowiedge"of:th~ even~' on whi.c_h th~ QPmjpi_l ~s base4 ap,4. t}l:e op.i.nion n,I,ISt b~ 11iltjQ~Jy b~e4 o:r:t ~~ lcnowl~~e. ld.. A witness may no~ offer opinron.s wbich 52 65 • • are b.ased on s~ieAtinc, ~hni_~, or other -~gal.~ l over the mode of· questioning of witnesses and presenting eVidence. Wielding· this p:ower, the· court is teSpOijslble fdr ei)$Urjng tb-.1 Ule ip~~ptJon ofwitl)~ and presentation of evl.dence is done effectively "for the ascertainment of the tru:th~" Tejc. R. Ev1d. 611 (a). Among the objections conteJ:ilplated by texas RUle 6.11 is the "common law ugumentative objection." P(U'def! v. State, 2"01"2 WL 3~1648:.s., at •6 (Tex. App;-Texaikana 2012, p.et denied) (not pUblished). TliiS·objecfiQ.n iS often.nlis:understPQd Q a way to object to opposil)g co~l who ls· ~argUing with~·, the Witne$9 on the stand See id. ("the· :a:rgwnentative obje~on is an objectio~ common!; ~ b}.i~ ~Q~ co~Qnly u.n4~- "). H9wever,. it is more a~.e.\Ji'ately an o.bje:ction to the opposing party's attempt to argue its case 'while quest,ionm~ a witness. Id. "Counsel may not, in the gUise of asking a qUoeStion, make a jury arg~en~ or att~mpt to summarize, draw inferences from, or comment on the eVidence. lil Cld.dlti~ qu.e~onS that ask a witil~ to ~$tift .~ -~ his oWn. ctedibility are impr~per.." ld (quoting .2A Steven Goode, et al., Texas Practice \ Series: CourtrO(Jf11 Handl»okon Texas Evidence§ 611 cmt. 12 (2012)). Ifthe.trial c~ ov~le4 ~ obj~~:tion t9 qu_e:~ion_il')~ tba~ meets ~~~ cri.t~~l!4 i~ wo~l4 constitute trial court error; 66 • • B. Trbll CouP..~el f~_iled ~Q Object to tlle lD)pJ;Oper L.ay Opjilion Elicited frQ~ ]Jre~;~d~ Wh:i~ker · During its guilt. phase· presentation, the d~ens~ qalled Bre.n.~ Whi~er; ~ ~warke.- With the .Andrews Center. (5·4 RR. at i 0.8·.) Whitake:r· wo:d 67 • • aspects· 0 f l;Il - ental . . . retardatfo , , further· . n, and . , testified ' . . to what .. .. it- means , be- tWo ........ to standard deviations below the mean. Q.. (By pro_sec;tn.or) We_ll, yo~'I'e ~ ab Q. -:right? A. Rlght. Q. In her abi"Ilty to func~on dafly ·and i,nte(lectua)ly, 98 p_ercept of the ~le i_n tbe Ui)iied S~tes lilt¢ better t}:iaQ h~_r; ~rrect? A. (Nodded.head affum:atively.) Q. Yo(i agree With th~t? A;. Ye_s_. (14 ~ l23-Z4.) While Whitaker ultimately agre·ed With the State's clinical definition of me_n_tal re~ard:ation and what i~ mean$ to function at ·two Stanciard devia~_i6ns below the m_ean, it was· only ~fter th.e S~te cQrrecte4. lwr tb~ sb.~ cUd so. Prior tq th.at exchange it had never been established that Whitaker had the "scientific, technical, or oUl~r ~peci_~fi~4 }qJowledg~" on whi~h ~o b~ s:t,1ch ·ap opjni 68 • • definition of n::t~n~ ~pen ~ire confidence in.her qualification to te8Ufy to such a scientific and technical topic. . . .By eStablishing that Cheny Waiker functioned at a lower level than 9'8 percent of the CQUntry, the State was· ~l>le to ·in.4~c:e Whi41k~ to bacldrack on ~ previous ~~¢1.11:$ re·garcU,ng WaUcer's cn.mpet~t:tc:.e. to b~_bysit cl)jl~. (Jd -~ 1_24¥) Yet, tlj~ co~.l d'j<;t got object to Whltak~t.'s i,mproper lay opitllon. Had C9Ulis~l objected ·~ tt,;:~ poi,nt to WhjtakerTs imprQper lay oplnioht, the t;dal court .. I.. .. would ~ve- ~-~~ and tbe S1::a:te woiild h_ave been prevented from undemiliiing the vast . .jori~ of WbjUJker'i$· t~Q'Q:y.. Beca:use Wh.i~q luui not been qu.ali_ti~ B$. an ~ h~ 4$timo{iy ~bowd have b=.;t litt;tited to f.a~ which she ha4 p~rson.al k,nowleQ.ge. of SJ;ld logic~ i¢erences that coUld be· made therefrom. Whitaket was quarlfied to testify to her obsel'Yati()Il$ of Walker artc;l c~ l.nferences she, might make about Waiket;sintelieCtWIJ dlsabild;y based on those oh~r'Vations. However, the statisticai br¢akd0wn of ~ve ~d i:l)tellec~ nmctio~ was well beyond Whitaker's competence as a. lay witness. Her 1.Jllcle~djJ:Jg, or l~ck thereof, of was not helpful to the· jury iii widerStaildlilg. b.et testiinony or det~onining a f~ct i.n js~~-~ Even if cQlii)Sel di_d not objee~ to Wh.i~er's ig~w.oPef l~Y op_i(liP.J;I:, 'i_t ~I~ sl:t,oulci ,h_aye obj~'*d t9 ~he ~nteJ.l~~-ve n~-~~ oftbe Stit,e's questio.~in& Wh_i_l~ th¢ Sta~ is ~nnitt¢4 ~ cross-e~@.don to_ offer sU¢em~1;i to whjcl:t ih~ wjtness may awee- or disagree. the S.tate may not go so far as to correct the answers ~ven t>y ~e wif..J:l~S.S· I.n this si~1i01l; the S~te· .mad.e a concerted ~ff~i1 to pu~ testhnpny before the. J\lry which Whi~er w~ Q.ot ~le ~ offer.- Whitaker did not appear to be familiar with the clinical defiriitic;n of mental retardation, nor the iJnplic~ioii.s of being two st;an.d.ard devl~uori.s ~low tbe m~. Nevertl:l~less, the State offered the explal)acl.on_ '~in th~ guise 9f .l!.S.kin$ ~ q~_es9on/-' Th.i:s eviden~ w~ ~ ess~~i~ part of t.l:te S~te's ca~, ccm~i.d~ri.O$ ~~ the primary tl)ot.ive for 56 69 • • the c.rh.ne ~ ~ ~~'ged was· Cargill's d~jre to prevent CPS from findii:tg out t:Qat s~e had. ijited a ll;lentally rewded woman .to babysit. her son.. Trial counsel's f~h1re t.o object to tbe State; s argumentative questioning constituted deficient perfoi'm.ance under prevailing norms at the· time oftria.L c. <;~J'Iin was Prejudiced by Trial· Couasel~s FaiDure to Object to the Impro~r Lay'Teitimo.ny ofBren~ 'WhJta.~r· Trial~~·~ ~lt;Jre to ol;lj~~ ~o tb.¢ S~~'s ~~el)tative qu~oning and the resuiting improper ~ opinian by Whltakei" prejudic~ Cargjll. Tb.e S~'s . mentative argu . . .. queStio · · essentiall . . . rn.ng . . y cailed on 4;;~ to bet own Whltaker to testi&J credibility.. See Par~, 20l2 WL 35164.85, at •6 c~~qu$.i()ns ~~ ~·• wifl.lc;ss ~o t~~fy a9 tO his own credl"bliity ate improper'). After Whitaker testified that sbe w.otked with the intellectually diSabled at the ~ws· Center ~d tha~ Wa1k"r showed signS ofbeiiig a capable babysitter, the swe asked, "And so the Andrews Center·does· pot })ave afty probl~ witlt mil.dly men4Uy ret;arded pe<>ple keeping- keeping children?;, (54 RR at 138.) Whitaker explain:e4 tlla~ 'it was not witbln tb~ Andrews Center's pti'rView to detemiine wbethei' or not clients woUld babysit children. (/d) The Sta~ ~ded, ~Ijust.do.Q't @cle~d how someone wh9:s functioning in the lower 2 percent of everyone 'in the nation, adaptively and ~tellectwllly, bow a,nyon¢ c()U,l~ thhl,k. ~i tb,ey a.I:t; ~p~ble of taking care of' a cqild/' (Id.) Wb.i~er ~ ~ ~t witne.~ for rb~ d~fem;e, 8$ s,he te~itj~ that Walker WaS qualified to babysit, Cargill did not try to hide the ract m~t w~ was her 'babysitter, and, accorCiingiy, there Was no good reason for. Cargill to obstru~t Wal,l{er froJD ~es:tifyii,ig .at ~~ C~S hearing. However, the Sta~'s argti'lnel).tative que$iioriing and Whitaker's resulting improper lay opinion effectiv.ely ~dermi~ed whatever credl"billty Whitaker possessed when she took the .stand. 70 • Whj~er!s w~m~y w~ ~spec_i~ly ~mpQrtant because the defense called only four witn~sses durihg_ tbe guilt phase of"tnal. In additiQn tQ Cargill ~ ~ ~~4, tl1e def~se: ~led Whitaker., DeteCtive James Riggle, and Loren Puig .. Riggle's tes_tim~ny f~us.e4 on his inyesligatlon of Wallc~r's ~eJtt folloWing the lnddenL (54 RR at 86-102.) Specifically he was call~ tO testify that he diseov~ a ~111 org@,j_~ i~ ~e ~ent that seemed to Indicate walker had not taken her medication on the day of he·r death. (~e id. at: 89..91_,) Puig was cllll.ed (~t the v~ murow ptirpOse of' eStabflshing- that Cargill did, in fact, have -a dog named '"Or®" _and that the dog had r:un away at some pQint,.. (14. ,~ 14,5-62-.) PW,g recalled seeing signs around the neighborhood for the dog. (Jd at 147~) Con$idering the baUmce Qf d~fense w1tn~sse$ that. were· called at trial, Whitaker's testimony was vital to Ca:rgill's defense for the purpc:;se of undermiriing the mQtive· ~l~e4l;Jy tlle S~te.- The S~te's impea,cbm~t '!'l"Whitaker through mapptopri._ate. means pteju_diced Cargill's defe_ns~. Had c:~el obj~ ~the argum~~v~ qttestionfug·' by th~ Sta~e .,_d. Wi)itak~r's ·b,nproper .. l.ay opi(.ii~, th_e obje·ction would ~fitve ~ -~e4 an.4 ¢-ere i.s ~ ~ble p_robability that the jury would have (o1:JI1d ~ the ~ot.jvc:· for th~ crilpe proffered by dle Slate was ¢1convinc1ng. Therefor~ if counsel had properly objeeted on these grounds, there is .a reasonable proba,biiity th~ the o\itcome of the prb~eedlil$5 wo~ld ·hav.·e been diffet~t. As Sl:l~~ CargiU'lii c~mvictj'ol)·sh9~.1~ 11e ~ve~~- CLAIM~OtiR TRIAL COUN.SEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE- tO REQUEST A. CHANGE. OF VENUE DUE. TO INFLAMMATORY P~TIUAL. PtfBLICITY The Sixth Arrieild.ll1.~nt to tb.e Upj1~d S~~s <;on.stiWli,Qt:~ declare{$ Wrt die accuse4 ~n.. ~ll crirnlna.l prc)5.e~iQns· $ball ~nj Q)' th~ rigb~· tQ a trial by an hnp~al j'ury. l>v.ncan v. Louisiana, l91 u.s. 145, 148-54 (1968). This fundantental right 58 71 • ·inclqd.@:s· th.e ·rjgh~ tp ~· t.ri~ 'Qy ·a. jury .fre:e from outsid~ 'i..ilt}~et,l~~~ ~.ch as . prejudicial pre-trial pu_~licib.'~ $h.q1p(l1'd v. M~e.ll {1966) 334 u. s~ ,333, 362":63. Courts consider several factors in detetm.in.il)g w:h.~er pr~trjal publicicy w;1d commill:iity prejudice prevent a fair tri.J., 'i.n~l\Jdin$ w.b~Ut~ the g~s ~ories coveting the: crime c·ontciliied blatantly· prejudicial infurinatiQD an4 the sevexjty ~4 nQtonety o.fthe off~se.~ Slr#.#ng v. l/r#.t~4. S,(qt~., 561 u.s~ ·358; 382-83 (20iO); If¢~\'.: $(at~;. 516 .S.•W.:'l.d 6.6, 7142 (Tex. Crim. App. 1918). Jrt Qggij)'s~, ~~ pre-~.al publicity and media attention regarding Cherry W~'s death an.d Cargill's ~ll~e:d invc,lvemept prevented her from rec~iVing a fair tO~:~ A~ a result, defe~ couijsel's failUre tO request a change ofvenue detlled C.'argill tbe· effective assistal)ce of co~seJ ~4 prejudiced her hi Violatlan of her appllcable .state and federal Constitutional ~ state statU.tOtY law, as well as U:nited States Supreme ootirt ·a:nd state case law·. Therefore, Cti&ill's conviction ·amt death .sentence should be vac.ated. A. the Media Coverage of Cargill's Arrest and Trial Was Extensive and Inftammat~ry · Tb~ Ccm_stjt~on ~tees 3 ~r t;ri.~l by -~ il!lp~i~ jury, but the United States Supreme Court has expanded this right 10 include ·~ir:tdlfferent" j~.~ Irn11. v• .Dowd,.~66 U.S. 71.7, 722. (196i). to justify a chang~ of venue based on media ·anenij914 ' def~dan' musl sbow that the· pubUcity about the· cas¢, was perv'asive, prejudiclal, ~d '.ii)fl~IDatory. S!;z/az.qr y. State, 36 S.W~.Jd 141, 150 (T!=~· Crirrt. · App. 2001). In 2010, Smith Cou.nty maintained a popUlation of 209,714~ With 96,901 24 resid)ng Within the Tyler city limits. V ario:us media outlets, including the 23 http://en.wikip·edia.org/wiki/Smith County. Texas (las.t yi$ited July 17, W141 . 24 httiJ:lleil:_wikipedla.or&wlki!fyler. Texas (last visited July i 7, 2014.) 59 72 • • Tyler· Motnl~ t~iep.Pb~~ K.l,:tV, ~ytX, KCEN~ and KETK, covered the story of Walker's death and Cargill'.$ sub~ ~.in ~g 4~1... Th.~ D.l~a coverage documenting the intident started as soon as Walker's body·was foun4 and C(intinued W't>Ugh the en4 of tiiJ.I, Q,early two years l~er. The trial i~lf was eXtenSively oovered on television and in print. Iil fact,. the trial was "live blogge:d" Ht i~ eJ:itlreo/,, wiUt a reporter p~lishing • reci~on of teStimony In real time for an onlme audience. News ·cameras w~ a colllStant pn=.~~·e in the courtrQow ap.d video footage W&s both uploaded to the news website and broadcast' on television on. a ~ly b~i~ the court was aware that media eoverage would affect the ·ability to find im~al ju:ro~. As ~ucl;l, on July 7, 20 l1 the co.urt signed a Restrictive and Protective order that acknowlaiged. the existence of pre.;,tzial p\lblicity b1 the case and set forth restrictions regarding broadcast, i:nfotmation dissemination, and public sta.~m.ents.. (I CR at 39-43-.) Howev.¢r, qiis order was el)tere4 after th¢re had already been extensive coverage 'in the media regarding Walker's death and Ca,rgi_ll's. arrest. Even despite the protective order, 'between July 7, 201.1, and the cOmmencement of trial, the Tyler Morning Telegraph alone publiShed at l®t pj.t),e artiCles tegatciing the cas¢.26 (See Ex. 23 [Tyler Moming;News Arts~]..) On May 7, 2 'CirculatioQ. of' the ·Tyler Monijhg 'Teiegtaph is fcitrly Widesprea.Q, Witb. ~ daily Circulation of 22,-556 and 27-,568 on Sunday. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilfyler .Morning Telegraph (l~ vi.si~ July l7-~ 201:4).. 26 On Marc~ 2:2·, 20 l~, ibe first day of voir dire. deferts.e: Col)nsel brougllt tQ the court"-s attention the fact that a video c·a:mem,had "surrepti'tiou:sly" ~brought into the cQ'UrtroOm d~ng. ~ J)re-triallJ.ea,ring an~ vide<> foot.age from ~at hear1ng m was broadcast.. violaq~ of the testii¢tive an4 protective c>rd¢f:.. Tri_aJ co~~i requ:ested that either the current venire b.e disui.is.s:ed or venu¢ c~·ged. District Attorney Singl).am ~ClQ:l()wledge~ be ~w ~- stqry i_n tl:l.e I)~W.s~pe.r a}x>ut th~ tri~ and was }~Pset at the fact that [the reporter] had tepo'rted that we were paying for information on jlJ.JYX:S' cri.Jt:l:inal h_is.t~_ry/' ai:ngh.~ furtb~r sta~ed m~:re ~s no~ing 60 73 • • ZOlZ., o,n th~ first ®..y oft~.m-~ ~n ~he gu)lVlllJl.OC~ce p~·ofCaigiU's ~apiW an (>rder to gi:~t m:ed:ia trial, t;h¢ cou}:t $iJP1ed a:ccess to th~ Tyler Momjng Telegaph, ~1V,an.d cas 19~ (4:2 RR at 37-38.) The amowt o_f c~v~$e the ~ recejv~d ~out i~ F,Qdet)cy was eXteus1v~. Howeve.r.; it w~ ~ PJ"e-trj~ p~bU~ity ~ was the most egregious.. The Supnm)~ ColJ,rt ~ C(!)~id~ both the e.~~ am4 dl.stribution of pre-trial publ_icity and the substance of s:uch pu~Hcicy. Part of th~ atl~ysi_~· ccmQ~· wheth~ tiJ,e public_ity·was bl~tl)' pre.fu4.1Ci.~, WJljc:h ~ ittcl_u~ the·rev~l~o~ of c:le:tails of the de.fendant's b~kgroun:d and/Qr previowr crime.s ~i~-. $ee u.. s. at 7:2·5-26.. the a:it),Olint anc;l infl~~ na~ oft,b.~· infQ~tio.n l_~i"', 366 di!s~l®d about· C&J"gill mtJ;le: medi.~ p_rej~d.i~d her ~~ilicy to recejve a f.aJr tri.~ mdeptndelit of outSide influences. N4;w:s ~on¢$ ~~ Ch~ Wallt~ beg~ the: day h~ body·was f01.ind,17 and oontllw.ed in earnest even after the prono:unc:em~t of Cargill's d~ set:lte:nc~.:il A COn:m.:t9il thre84 ~n tl.J~ coverage W&$. the i4~tjfj~on Qf W~ ~ a men~ly cij~blec,l 4:14.iv:id~ wbo worlc.ed ~ a ~ysJ~er (or C~rgili. In fact, ~e JWOn:ed beyQD.d wbat w~ ~4 in ope1:1 cQurt -~4 I)~ be_ljev~ Ut~ repot:te, w~ given permission to filiil by a member of the court~s Staff. The c:oUrt denied the d~fense's requ~ ij~di_ng no prejta4ice ~Q <;::~i.ll.. (9 RR at 223""3 1.) CargiJ) aJ~eg~ irt this instant Application that it was the pre-trial publicity prio:r to the speeific inf<>n.na.Ucm. ~g juror ~rb:ni.nal ~sto.ries ~ w~ in fact prejudicial to her constitutionally guaranteed right t6 a fmt· triaL That prejudice eXiSted long before March 22, 2012, and tri~.l oo.unsel -\vas- ineffectiv~ for (~ll,ll'e to ~co~~~ ~ssue -~27 . See,&nith County Aiithoriti~ Need Help JdentiJYfng Wom.an-'3 Bolly, fus~ pu}>Hshed J~e J.9, 2010,- http:Jlwww.-kltv.com/story/12677701/smith~ountv~ ~~ori~es-n~-helttidentifving~\v.omans-body (laSt visited AUg. .~.20 14.) 2:1· See, kimberly Cargill's Trip to De~th Row Unjt ~egi~ T~y, tiro p\lbl.isbec;J June 7; 20 rz, http://www~k.ltv.com/stoty/.l8'13.04831k.imberly-cargiUs trip.-to:death-row-uiiit~besZillS-today (iast vls.ited Aug~ 2, 20 i 4.} 61 74 • • majority of headlin¢s idt;mtined Walker u ~~ysiuer." ~~~ th~ {act that the investigation was still in its infancy, the m:e.dialatched on to identifying Wallc,~r by bet:rei~on,s~p w C~il). ;Fu,Ulel'D}ore, on July 1,.20.10 (less thaiHwo weeks after Walker's death)~ -an aitlcl_e ran ·m at least tWo fOr!ns and .on multiple n~ws Ol.JU.~t$ i Walker ~e a number of other inflammatory assertions, l:ncluding that Walker ~ her fOOd s:ta:mp money to buy food for ~11' s· son; Catglll ott¢D failed to pay Waiket for her services; aiid Cargill left. bet son in Walket'.s care overnight wjtb.Ol).t ~®q~e CQllJpeliS"ation. Th~ articles aJs(:) ooritaf ned macc:Urate factS, mcludfug that some of Walker's belongings wet¢ found in Cargill.'s home and vehicle· following the execution of a S¢atch warrant. .(Ex. 15 [ V~e.tiin Set to tes.tt&J~ Ex~ 16 [.Woman. Killed to Keep Her Silent].) KL TV-7 News ran an identie;al story te$8fdin~ Cargi_ll's alleged lnvQlvement with WaJker;s de~ but on television. TIJ"e· video fonn$t i.nclucied foot~ge of the· crime sceiJ,e :wd the l"i:ve 1nt~tv.i¢w with Walker's father and ste~ · mother; The interview :is intense•y emotional and it is clear that Ru¢on Walker btlieves Cargillls net only responsible for Walker's death but mfstreated Waiker "in her role as Cargifl ,.s baby~itter.. Rueon "js (ijstraught a;s ~J:ae d~Q·~~ Wa_l~~·a.s a 62 75 • • "c_t»_lc,f' ~:d bero~OAAS, ~-~I:I9W co~lcl e,nyol)~ hl,k~:s~~.b iJ:moc~ce, that'-s what.l want. to .say~ such innocence an.d he s_o Violent,. SQ m;e·an, ·so evil?" (~.. 38 [News Footage].) 2, 20 i o,. KLTV o~ published an article entitled The. very nej¢ ~y, July "Looking fot Safety When Subpoenaed" Since, "the death of Cherry Walker· has rm:-. a ~sn~" ~ ·~ .~e)'' ap~ law .enforeement officials proVided tips fot peop"1e to keep . themseIves R-...&.··· wben .. a4e . cailed . ...~ at. coUrt. . _ to teSti~' .. . . .~.. c. ..g,J.-~- Althou·nJ. .mll is.. not ~eci6,~1y ~ed ~ the text, her photograph apj)ears ·in ¢onjUnct1on with the article, 'iJ1'1Jil~iately ~low a· photo Qf Cherry Walk~r. (E.~. 17 [Looking for Safety]..)' Tiie: publication of st!Ch a Story solidified catgiit as a person With a clearly defuie4 motive ~ klil w~ik<~_,..,.~ Qrdet to preve~t her :from teStifYing in co'Wt •. FUrthermore, m.uitiple articles ran in VariOUs publications In print and onl.iDe ·wile .. ~'II was· arrested ~ C-- .. in connectio " . . ~ with . . Walker's - the end of June . . . at . . . . . .death 2010 and When Suzanne Jones-DaviS was -arrested for allegedly tampering with eviden¢. Il w~ reported t.hft,~DNA evic;lepce· connected Cargill to the crime seene. _ ·(See. Ex.. 18 [Mother Charged]; Ex. 19 [Whltehowe Woman Arr¢sted]; ~-- 2() {Friend of Cc:Ugill Charged].) the· stOry of Catgill'(s atTest received :attention beyond ju_st loc.al medi.a outlets· as· well.. The website '-~a~~ areeders'' publishes s.t()fiC$ about ''p~nt.ill$ -~ J,la'CJ ifs qim.i,n,lllJ:•-.:t The ~t>~~c pj(;~ed up t:tews of CargiU 's atrest and Included her photo and colorful ·commentazy o:n the site, ·&;S.~~rtil;tg ''so be~e i)ot. ~illy w-.-e yo~ 'allegedly' .such an abu!lve mother you. ·ane·gedly' had to kill a:n jnnocent witness· and set her body of fire to ey aJtd :h_ide yout .i.n_adequ_~es as apa.tm.tt." (Ex. 21 [Texas Bte~r].) was·. a,n_ "e~pose" on Ca.rsill wri¢.en by news reporter Kenneth Howeve:r, it Dean with the Tyler Morning Telegraph that took the mtlarrunatory n~e of the cov~e to ara entirely different level_~ O:t:t Sep~ember l4, Z()lQ, t)t~ Tyl~ Momiog 6~ 76 • Tel~gt:aph publi.sbe4 in $e S~day n:ewspaper and pOsted online·@ article endtl~ -~Vi.ol~~e; M.~W I.ll~~ Defi~e Al.leged K.lfler." (See Ex. 22 [Dean ~].) The publJ~~Oil of this particular article came over a month prior t,o Ca;rgi.U' s ~d jury indl~erit for ~e. death of Walker and over-a year.:..and-halfbefote the selection of Cargill~s capiW j\1?'. Th~ arilcte is a sa13,Ciaus and highly in:tlariiinatricy report reg~djng C~l's ~eged prior violent behavior an:4 hi.~ory of tuPIW.~olJ;$ rel.~()~ps_. ~ro~ tb.~fb:st ~~tezxce to the 1~ it is· c.lear that the ~thor beU¢ve$ C~ll is 1n fact guilty of Plui'~g Walker and Cargill's propensity for- Violence is indi~ve of her l.egal re_sponsibil.iW" for Waj~;s ~tb. In the artide, intensely personal and -ihtiiilate. details of catglll's life were revealed inc.l\lding specifiC$ reg~ing her prjor ~~ ·a,nd c~stody b~ttl.~s, treatment for depression alid mental health issue~·~ history of difficult reladoriships. (/d) From this the al,lthor SU:I:J:D..i~ ~ " ••• records c;tetall court battleS, aitests, coUrt-ordered ~chological evaluatjons, a,l;use a,c.Ctl$atic;ms, violence, a pl~ 14~p~ atl4. even murder [sic] thoughts." (Jd.) The article cites exten!ively to a psycholO"gic.al evallJS~on~ of Cargi.U t1U¢ •· the· time was over twenty years old, a8 ail indication of Cargill's volatile personality and pro:clivity for violence and rag~. Addition~.Il)', the ~c::.le proVides quoted mate-rial ftoin Cargill's family inembe'rS~ ex-hUsbands and boyfriends~ and e~-ip laws who all had n~g~ve experiences with ·Catgiil and ac~cW.ed her· of vari.ous· i:qcid~ts of WJ'Or)$ dO~·s·· ~s· ~g~4 from fiiing "false" police reports, to "manipulating the judicial and welfare system," to abusing her owil c.h.ildren. (J.d.~) 29 Th~ P.$Ych.oiog"ical ev~lu~p.on ~sed by the ·~icle w~ tb~ one perforriled by Dr. Sandra Cnug in 1993 as a part of th.e c.ustody case involving Cargiil's eideSt sort. Ot. Crilg testified at the puniShtnem pbase ofCargijl's tri~~ (58 RR at .32• 105.) 64 77 • • • SpecUically, th~ ~cle cb;rcm.jcJed r;m imervi¢w trul! the ~~or dld wi~ Cargill's ~~b.U$baild, Brian CargiU, who rec.o~ ®t C~gill got pregnant· d~~e h~· ~rtioi.J,S ~be· w~~ ~¢ have ac;lditi~naJ ~hildten ~4 b.~ an explosive. tem~. The ar:ticle quoted Brian Cargill as ~yin$, ~-So~·~ [C~Ul woQld punch me rigbt in tbe fac~ hi ord¢r ~ ~t some ldhd of ~s"'~·-·[C~gill'·s] behavjor was ~l:y ~c (roJ,l one mom_ep.t to then.~ One Injnute ~e was great,. and the next sbe was throwing dishes.~':'· (Ex. 2~ ~ Arq.) Bl'i~ CargjJl w~t on to say that be' w~s not surp~.d to :find Cargill ln. her·~ sjtuarlon of being arrested for mwder and opm~, '~e pet:SPn here that suffered the m.~~t is· Ms. Cherry Walker· and her family ...that wo~ was a Iilartyr for· the ~ of~-· It's tragic this had to happen for the re$t ofus· to ~ve $9m~hat· Qf' I)_orm.~ Ut:~. My h~ goes out tp Ms. Walket's family.~ (Jd.) How!i'Ver~ ~ is p~ps II}Ost egregious is the ~tati~ wi~l,g. th~. arti.cJ~ ~ tb:ose ~~~ ~9. c~.n w~ livi.I:tg ip f~ Qf h.~· and ~er· P9tCm~al .for · ·v'ioleilc~. On~ (orjite.r re.l.ative was quoted 8$ saying, ·"I know (Catgill'.s] in jail but we're $11 still s~.ared th~t.she will somehow b~~ the ~stepJ BQd g~t o\l,t. I oon·'t put an~g past l.l~··" (Ex .. 22 [D~ Alt. ].) ~ikewise, Bljan C.~gill was qu;ot~ as sayin$; "[Garglll) car) co1,1vmce people ~ do al_l kinds of ·th&tgs, and we're all worried abo\lt ber; ev~ ~ough sl)e'~ injaiJ/' {14.) B. Gltgill Was Prejudiced by Trial Counsel's Failure to Move f()r a · Cb.,gge·of'Veuue , The effect of pr'e':-tiial publidty can be pervasive. PreJudicial pre-trial publicity has been found to influence evaluations of the· defendatit'·s iikabllity, sympathy for the d~fendant, perceptions of the defendant 3$ a ~i'~" crh:n.in~, pre-trial jUdgments of the defendant's _guilt, and iil some cas·es, final verdicts.. Christina Studebaker & Steven Penrod, Pretriq.J PubUc~ty;~ The Medt'a, thf! Lp)v,. and Common Se~se, 3 Psychol:..Pub.Pol':Y & L~ 428, 433 (1997) [hete~aft~r '·'Pre- 78 • • tri~ P\lblicio/"}. Juror QUestionnaire in Cargill's case ~estjo~;~ No. 63 of the a8ked if the venire mem~ had "Heard, red, ·seen or 1~¢<1 ~ytMtg ·about this case frOm an:y soutce? (Radlo, Television, 'Newspaper,. Other)." Follow-up questions asked fo.J( the ·$o1(rees of h'lfomi~J.i·cm, til;njng of i.nfonnation, and an explanation of what the venire person heard, read, saw, or team·ed. Of'the v~ tllat ~ imp~~~~ but not seated as jurol'S; almost sixcy IndividUals had been privy to pre•trial publiCity regarding Cargill and/or the alleg·ed crinJ,~. (E.~ 27 [Ex,cerpts fr 30 · In July 2014, post-conviction counsel requested and received eople$ oftbe jwor qt,~estiooo.aires from the Sm,itl) COWtty court: llle only page inci\i.ded from that queStl.artnalre 1rt Appiic·ant's eXhibits is the one. with the relevant pre--trial publi¢ity exposure .que·stion (as opposed· to each qu~onnaire in its entirety) in ~ eff()rt to save paper· and protect ~e n1PJ)es ·~(i id¢IJ.tifylrig information of the v~n,~re. 79 • • Ofthe .un " . J·urors·, tw_o ... panete·d · · rted " l'qX) " . eXposure to · · _...:·ft 1 :P·ubiiclty . pre....u~ . ·, in s·ome. orm. tj··· · · F'··Jds J w-or 1e m ·· dicated' on _hiS qu · estionnaife that he b:ad . . -seen ~"""'"'""(!'"' . . . ._.-: -:•.-e.- on tel~ision ·an4 was aware that "Ms~ W~~. ~~ beei) Iqllec:t. ~ J,.e,t body w~ :fotmd ~ Whiteh~; TX. That Ms.. W;1Ilter~ a c.ml4 ~ work~· Th~. ~ Cargill was later charged With murdet." (Ex. 40 [~·stionnaite',ofFi~lds].) During indiyidUaJ voir dire, .Ju,ror F~eld$ r¢it~•ed tJ;I~t h~ had ~d ~ti!Qr l)eard reports abaut the case btit it wu not .enoUgh for him to make a deciSion.. He agreed he colil4 p.U~ wbl¢ he ~ read ~d/or b~ O\lt of his ~nd whe,1 m.,ald;tg. a decisi,ort abou,t the c..a:s~. (38 ~ a.t 117,-18_.) - se,-· 1urot LikeWi -· Shaffer . -- - answered .- - in ., - q-\lestionnaire -- his .. . that he kn:ew of the ~ nnm the~~. ~j\J$t ~ ~ l.~y w_~ ~ed of [sic] murder." (E~. 41 (Qu~~ ofS~er].) ~g mwyi~ voir dire, t® o~y questian Juror Slm.ffer ~~with ~ga,rd ~o preo-t;rial public'ity was, "You haven't really read, 5een, or learned anything abotrt this caSe: that would ~use- you to nave f~~ -~ opinion yet?" to WhiCh he siriipfy answeted "no." (22 RR at 15.8.) Neither of the jl.JrOt:$ whQ a.dmltted to be~ ~~pa$e4- to pre-tri.al publicizy were ~ about the eXtent of their eXpo8ure, what .specific new.s reports or ~tones they either saw or heQrCJ, the SJ?~ifi~ media source they were exposed tot and/or what sp:e:clfie· content was cnntained in the reports. With pr:e-trial publicity as e~ensive ~ it ·WM in Cargill's c~e; it is reasonably prob:able that the Jurors were exposed tQ the higbly int1ammatory and prejudicial reports descrfbed above.. See also Notbert L.. Kerr et al., 01:z (he Eff~c#v~s QfVoir Dire (n Criminal Cases w~th _Prejud_icial Pre(rkll Public_ity: AJJ Empirical Stt4y; 40 AM:· '(,1. L.. R.EV. 665, 6.95-99 (1991) (concluding that the- re5ults of a study show that voir dire is not an effective barrier ~stjurorbi~ ~at_ed by ~~~~to pre-.tri_al p~_bli.~io/l~ J~ «;;ii ~- preju4iced by pubii~ity e:ven though they are n_Qt c_onscio:US~y aware they are affected in this way. The-rnajo,ityofjurors tend to b~Heve, ~4 ~I) 67 80 • • the col,l,rt, Qt,a~ tlley a~ iJ1 (~ct abJe, to be· nnp~. Pre"'!trial Publicitji at. 433.~34. Media exposure caa. contribute tO the fonnati,on Qf a parti~lar ftatnework f~r organ_iZing infotmat1on and infiuence the way the case inforiilation is heard and pro:cessed.. Similatlyt pte-trial p.Ublicity shapes tbe way in which j\JroJ:S J~;~.~er h~ evidence at trial-"medla coverage both id'fe(:ts and is affected by community sentiment aboJ.lt ·a ~' :in~~~~ so~ip; ~rs, and pressure· t9 coilfunn to comm:Wlity opinion and to community nonnative valu@ about ju_stice." El_l~ Brickln.ai:l, et ~., How Juror Internet Use Haa Changed ~he Ammc~ Jury Trial, 1 Journal ofC.ourt Innovation 2'87_,.28.8 (2008)[hereinafter "Juror~~~ l,Js~"]:.. It is exceedingly diffieult fot jurors·~ set aside e~ic infomxaiion 4~g tbe CQurse ofa trajl.. Whlle t;be ~\\J1 rouQJ)~ly ~d ~~e.pt.J.y ~~jurors J:l9t tO ~ly 0)1 infqmwi011 th~y hay'e l.e.am¢~ ~\l~j_4¢ th~ CO\l$'0011..1, th~ adznc>nition n:ts.J.c~ l_i~e di.ff.ere11ce. Pespite instJiJ.ctiQJ:)s to the· contrary, j'uto~ tend to tmng to d¢.libe@;ti(>ns any 1s~es ~t $ey ~o~der to be ~'ev~~ t9 tl}e dedsion ro~g p~s. Juror Internet Use at 2.91; citing Sh.-;. Diamond&. Neil Vidmar, Jury R,oom Ruminations· 01.1 Forbid!l!m Toptcs, 87 V~L.R,ev. 1857, 1863 (20(H). Thls phenomenon is- ·not the resUlt of intentional or deliberate dl.sobecilence to judicial instructions. Jurors are p:eople· and ~:ople ate ge~taily tinable to distega:rd informa~ion that they alreaP)' kbow and consj~to be:rel~~~ wb.~ther-they ought to Or not. Onc:e heard,. the information cannot be, ·;gnored. Ju.ror Internet Use ~ 291 ~ Citing Shari o·iainond, Beyond Fantasy and Nightihtii'e.• A Porli'azt ofthe.Jury, 54 8\lfll,..R;ev. 717, 150:-S l (200.6). A ti"ePlen~o~ ~Qtm~ Qf' b.t.fomt~~i. infQm.ta~i 81 • • .. . not was . done . sa unti.I · unislunent .. the.. p.. . ·-. p hase .. of trial. Any J·uror .. .. was . who ·· · . sed .. ~- . to .. t!te media coverage prior to that wo.uld have }»S$¢Ss.e.4 kn~wl~e of .highly prej'LJ(ilci~l afid "Inflammatory informatioil about Cargill before it w~ i_ntro.~¢ed by judlcially apprppriat~ m~aps. It wotl14 ~v~ been t:te~ to impossibl~·tor @j~r to "farget" about what wu :revealed through ·the course of pre-idaJ puJ1H~ity ap,d wotJld b~ve a naw:tal,·:a(bei~ ~.~t;.o~ c;ffee.t on the verdict. C.. Conch1sion ·The inft~o!Y a;nd P.fejud.ici$1 prt>trlal publ_ieity sUrrol.lndlng the· death of Wa(k:¢1' and ~.ll's subsequent:a:rrest created a situation where Cargill W8$ ~ot ~bt~· tp receive ~ fair trial. the media coverage wa:s too wi~spl"efid and too $alacious riot to h~ve had an effect. on thejurors. ~·~~sul:~ C~gill was prevented from ~lng judged by an impartial, indifferent j\ary. Trial counset:'s firllure ~ ~:q~est a cl;u~nge ofvenu~·prej'LJ:diced C~:U's -~ ~d thus, Cargill's verdict and se.n~~·of death $.o~ld be vacated CLAIM FiVE CARGILL RECEIVED INJ;~~ ~-STAN(X OF DIRECT APPEAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG m·E IMP-ROPER AND PREJUDICIAL . ADMISSION OF AN AUTOPSY PIIOtOGRAI'U . . lt i_$ w~U e.~~bl_i,$~ that cril_ninal defendants are entitled to effective assistance of couns~l dUring their direct ~ppeals.. the effeepve~ess of appeilate· counsel is de.termined using the two-prong Stricklarzd stan:d~. See Robbim, 548 u.s . ~~ 28_5; R.~ v. (lugrte~, 5~. F.$.4 517:, 5~1 (5th Cir. 2008); Amador v. (Mlrlermtm,, 458 F.Jd 397, 411 (5th Cir. 2006); Ex p{ute Santana, 221 S.W.J.d 70.0, 70+05 (Tex. Crlm. App~ 2·001). Appeilate·counsel is con_sjdeted ineffecti:v.~ if cotmse.l's p~ormaJ.lce w~ obj~ctively · unreasonable, and this deficient perfonnance prejudiced the defendartt. St.e Ries, 522 F~3d at 531 ;· A.m_t;~.c/or; 458 F.3d at 411. 82 • • Appellate CQunsel has an oblig~on ~o ~s~b. relev~t facts and law, sa as tOmise "soild, meritorious arguments" based on CQntroiUng pm:ede_nt i_n mt appe~e brief United States v. Willia1!1Son, 183 F.3d 458, 463 (5th Cir; 1999); accord Ries, 52.2 F.3d at. 531 ..32; s.ee Ex parte &mtana, 227 S.W3d ~ 704-0S (Strick/a,zd standard controls ineffective a8sistaiice of appellate ~1 ~laims). Section 12.2(A) of the State B~ Qf Texa;s Gui A. Ap~llate Counsel Perform.ed In.effeetive~ Wla~Q F•ilj)lg t() Appea_l Tr~l Counsel's Overruled Obj~tlon to the Admission of· tbe Aut'Opsy· Photograph DuriD·g the Tatimony of CheiTy Wallk,ei"s Hainlreaer· Scm.ya B~t:t, CI,.~:qy Wal:k~'s l:t~_rdres.~r, testi_fled. du~g the· guilt phase tflat W~~~r ·c:arne tQ her !;!hOp to bay~ })er ba:i.r- ~Qrt~ 0-.:1 J~e 18, 2010. Walker arrived.a:ro.u.nd 12:30 p.m... and stayed for a:n hour-and-a-halfto. two hours. Walker seemed fine and was talldng and laughing as U:S~ arid ba4 no htjuri~s~ ( 43 AA at· lOp.-08~) After this bri~f testimony, the State offered three oversized ph~hS (State's Tnal Exs. 78, 79, and 80) ofWaJker taken during hetaU:tbpsy. the. State's pro{f~r was tb.~t tb~ ~'-'i.ste4 tbe I)~ t~ ~~-~bl.i~ll tba~ w~_lke_r was jl_l (~ 4.~d ~4 this witne$s could properly do that. Tria'i c®nsel objec_ted because not only could 83 • • the p;ttbol9gist properly establish death, bUt the photographs were- fat more· p~judicial than probative.~ the:photQ~Ph.$ were pQster ~ze4 Qttd In on~ W~J 84 • • aspectS. /)t,Jii#in v. St'!Jt:_, 19.4 S.W.·3d l4, 2-5' (Te~. App.-Tyler 2006). At tb~ time Burton was called a:s a witness. at C.argjll's trial, tbe S~~e W8.$ in Ut~ proc~ of ~s~bU§h.ihg the relationship. betW~n Cargill and Walker.. The niedi~ examiner had not yet t~fie(i to th~ ~~$e of de~, or lac~ tJ!~f, ~d. ~Q evidence regarding the state of Walker~·s· b:ody had even be.en ·introd~ced:. Tl:t~ Witp.~ WhO di.SCQVered Qle body OD the Side Of the road nad not evel) beeiJ, presented (See: 45 RR at 60.) Thus, there' was no cllsc:erna})le ~xpl~ot:J. for why tbe S~ woW.d d,toose to publiSh a photograph from Walker's autopsy dUring d;u~ testiln'ony of her h$ir dresser· other than tQ ~nf1a,n;1~ !Ae jwy wid) tl).e shocl$lg and gruesome natt:ite of the eillarge:d image. Ult,Un.ately, admh~~ibility of photographs over any cha,Il~e i~ wf~ tb~ discretion of the trial judge.. Kendrick v.. State, 942 s:. W.2~ llO, 126 (T~. ApP.~-=-= B~on~ 1997).. However, ~.a,buse ofthatdlseretion ·occilrS when the probative value of admittfug the photograph is smail and the· inflanu:n;awry pot~~.al i$ ~ Kreyssig v. State; 935 S-.W.2d 88.6, 890 (fex:. App.-Texa:tkana 1996). The CQlirt muSt consiq~ ~ ~o.st of ~~Or$ ~ectjn.g prob~ven~ of eVidep~e, it:J,~luQi)lg the relative wei$11~ of the evid.ence an4 the ~gree ~ whi¢b. i~ propo~~t ;rojgh~ be disadymJtaged ~tl:toti~ '(t, .apd bai~ce those fact.O.t:s ~~ 9-te. t~~cy ~ tbe plwt.ographs h~e to en.~~e ~1\djon of m~~~-~1 i.~.es OJ) ~ ~nappropriate emotionai basis. Hooks v. State., 44 S,.W.3d 607, (jJS (Tex. App.-.T~~ar~ 2001).. Specifica1Iy when dealing With pho.te>gtaphs, mdetetm.inmg whether the infhmunatory naWre: of th~ evidence outwejghs hs probative v~llie ~~~~~ f~ include tl:le r;rumber of exh.ibi~· offered, t~eir· gru~~e~~. detail, si.z.e, if they are in color, if they are close-ups, whether the body is naked or clothed and the availabilizy·of other means of proof. Drew v. Stqte, 76 S:.W.Jd 4~6, 4Sl:52 (Tex. App.-HoUStoil [14th.Dist] 20.02). 85 • • liveQ witJt ~· J;Dost CW"SOl:'Y ·~.alysjs-it i~· cl~ar io this· CB:SC= ~.IJ.t the prejudjchil e~ qf ~ljit 78 ~ outweigbs &n)' possible pro\>a..tive v.aL11.;1e.. The photQgraph in queStion was particula:t~y gniesome. It was a greatly enlarged clo~up ofWalk~'s· (~ce as ~e lay on the autOpsy table. The photograph is in color and includes the number us.ed to 'i4en~:fY· an indiVidual for purposes of the alrtQpsy. (See. E:ic. 34 [A~~opsy Pl,lotoJ.Y 1 f.~errnore; that 'partictila.t phOtograph at that paint in testimony serve4 abs~luwly n,Q PfO~rive mgpose. . J'b.ere w~ no r;J.~ for W~_.'s ha:.in.ltesser t9 i(ie~~fy h~r d.~d body.•. By publishing the larger thailli'fe ·s~ Ph9P> ~~ tl!e. jury befQre ~Y teSt.ln;l()ny regarding cause of death or the C, ·j1 State's Trial EXhibit 78· is an oversized exhibit and thus was not included ~ a part of t:he l1Qtro~ ~cord em ~~aJ... Post-cot:lvi~.i.Qn co~l CQ~J.{jy~ted ~ i~ person review of the trial exhlbitS at the Smith County Courthouse in OCtobet. 2014. The photograph a_ttached a:s EXhjbit 34 to tilis Applica.ti~>n iS:;,. p.I:J.oto of the actl,lal trial exnibit which i.~ currently housed at tbe Smith Co®cy CQU.rthouse. 73 86 • • ~SI.~ THE STATE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT. WHEN IT ENGAGED .N IMPRQJ»~ AA.G~NT 'fiD.{OUGHOUT CAR~ iLL'S TRIAL, AN1l .TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING 'i'O OBJECT TO THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THESE iMPROPIU~TIES ~v~ry ~ tP~ entails obligations on the pan of both the State and. the 4-~fe#S.e.., Both p~es ~ve fli1 obligation-tQ mal soi_i~i~ ~I.evAAt ii:ifotn:tation from testifying witnesses,. to ffiune their questions to wit;o~ Congjsteg.t wim t}l~ Te~ RQ.l~ of J;;vid~~' ·~d,- generaily~ to inamtalli ®coto.m.. a;(lcf to acc;otd J9 tJ).~ proc;:ee~ that dignity which is expeCted ofofficers Qf the court,.; A~ tbe bean of th~ qbiigatlons is a coneem tliat ct1minal trials, @~Q~ ~ tnith-~kjpg ~d~vo~. Wi~out them, neither- the a~sed iJ.Qr ~e public C811 have that measure of coil.fldeilce in the outcome which Is necessary to ~~· aQI:n_ip.i$'a~~ Qf jllStice~ throughout Catg1Il':s capital trial for the:mul'der of'Cheny Watker, the S~te ro4tjnely di.~~~e4 ~~e oh(lga~oi;lS. Moreover, these ettei'S by the State re:c¢ived the faintest opposition frOm cargUt~s triai ooUl)Sel whc;>, fortbe most P.~ sat by as the1r client was disparaged, as religious imageJY was improperly invoked, . · as si4eb~ wtnrnent$ ~ ·sarcasm w~re pen;n.i~:d to 'infect dir®t .and ctoss• ~~art:li.n:~~:o~s ~i~, a.s· tbe St~e's role in Ut.e proc~in~ was nij~en~d, ~ the qualifications of one exp.ert wete challenged thro.ugh the questioning of anoi,ber, as facts and ass~rtions not in evidence· were testHied 1:0 by the prosecutOrs· th~mselves, a:s th.e mid.d.l&-aged victim Wll:S symp~tl:t¢ticlllll.Y r¢ferre4 to -~ "a child'' ~ci ~'c.hil.dlilce..~ apd as me rnagnitud~ ofthe jwy's responsibi.lity was dimi.nisb~. If not by w one of these errot:S then by them in c()mbinatioii, the prosecu:toi'S trallimeled upon Ca:rgill'.s rights undet the Texas· and United States Constitutions, 87 • • TeX"a$ sta:n,nc;;ry law, an~ Unite4 S~tes S~m~ Court and texas case- law; Accordingly, Cargill's conViction and her sen~nce mu$t be~~ A. Rel.~~,.t ~J St~nda.rds The State'.s atg'illnelits at trial may violate a .defendant's right to du:e:process· of ijlw ill, t;Wo respects.. First, the ar.gUmeilt may implicate a spe¢ific provision of the Bill of Rights that has~ fu~rated intp th~ F~:tb Am~~~nt by the Due· ProceSs Clau_se. Rogers;,, Lfr.J(1JJghy 848 F,~_d 606, 608 (~Ul. Cir. ~988).. Su~h argumt;mts are c_onsid~ ~~~_ife.sUy i_n:tprQPer, ~t\1_1; apd prejudicial to th.e defend~m/' CO.#~ v.: 6.8.3 .S.W.Zd 419, 420 (Tex. Grim_. App_, l984).. $(ate; S~l)d, qun.t~~ts that do not impiicate s·pecific provisions of the Bill of Rights may amount to a .general denial of ®e. process. Rogers, 848 -F-,24 ~t 608 (citjng DOnnelly v. JJeChristoforo. 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1914)). ill order to prevaii on a genetal -- -cess cl.ann, . due pro.. · the . rilllst - applicant . .... ' demonstrate . ' . .. ... . -· . that . . prosecutot's - - the statelileJrt waS improper and that the impropriety "so infected th:e· trial with ~~ess -~to ~ake the: resulting conviction a d~id of du~ proce$5.·;, Dard!m ,;,. Wafnwrig}J;t, 471 U..S. 168, l~1 (1986) (quotjl)g Do'IJ'le.l.ly; 416 U. S. at 643).:. To e~bl_i~b tl.l~ ~Uisi~. preJ~di~, ccmtr()l).i_ng ptet:$:~ req\,lires a s.howip.g- ~t ~ ~reason~le pro~~lity [exi~] ~t the verdict might have been different had the trial b:een properiy conducted." Rogers, 848 F'.2d at 60-9, T}:le CoUrt of Crin:t~ App~als also has loilg h~•d that the law provid~ for a fair tri~n_e· (r~ qom i_~proper ~ez:tt by t_he prQs_ec'QtiJ)g ~9r_rtey. fJoTjan \.'• $t_ii_t~, 787 S..W. .24. 53, 56 .(T~X,. C~.• App. 1990) (citing Dickinson v. State, 68S S ..W..2d .320~ 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Richanbon v. S.taJe, .2$:7 S.:W..2d 308 (Tex~. Crim. App. 1953)).- To be conSidered proper, jury argumentS rtuist fall Witb.fu one of four categories: (l) summation of the evidence; (2) rea.sQnable deduction fro~ th~ evidence~ (3) ·answet to argliiilent of oPPosing counsel-~ and (4) plea for law enforcement Guidry v~ Stat.e, 9 s.W.3d 133, 154 (TeX,. Criin. App. 75 88 • • 1999) (dting Cannon v. State, 668 S.W•.2.d 401, 4o4 (T~x. C~. App. 1984)).. Ptopet jlllY atgWnent therefore avQi,dS s~te;men~ ~-al~ul.ated to ipbj_bjt th~ j~ £ro111 deci4in$ th~ ca5e based on the evideii~e. presented, Rqgers, 848 F.2d at 610, and it. likewise liiri_iis i~lf tQ the reCQrd and t4o~ infe~~ w~ich mi~t reQSO.~_bly be 4.ed~~ ~¢.tefr.Qi;r;, !;Jrown v. St(J/e; Z70 S~-WJd. 564, 570 (Tex. Cr:i1n~ App. 2008).. A.s the Co~:rt ~ s~ted, "'The p~ose or ~l<>Sing arguments is to facilitate thejucy in proper~y analyZing the evidence presented at ttiai so ~ it may u:rlve at~ just.and reasonable oondusion based on the. evidence alone, and not on a:ny fact not.-~tted jn evidence." CQ.!J'il'b:e.Jl v.. St.t#e, 6JO S.W..2d 75:4, 756 (Tex. Cnm. App. 1.980) (internal citations omltted)}2· JUSt 8S the SU® has a da.l,ty to ·a:void ~pro~ argument, triai counselst responsibilities to their client include o.~jecting to in·admissible eviden~ or i!nproper ~-ent Slld e~li.shing a record of the. trial c(Jtiri's· a.d'Vene nilh:igs~ $e.e AB4 ~~l,ze_s, Gui4.el_il);e 10_;8, emf. e·'One o.fUle·r;g,~$t t\Jn--ep,_~ dutjes of . an a:tto·-:ney- defending a capital ¢sse at trial is the pres~rvation of any and all cOQc~vab~e e_rrors for each stage of- appel_late and post"!Coriviction review· ..."); ABA Standards.for Crlininai .Justice: Defense Funqtjon (3d ed_. 1993) (St~~ 4- 7.l(cl) (.:i{D]efense coUtisel has a duty to have the record re'flect advers.e ruiingS"). To e$blish tnat couns~l w~ ~<'ffect,i.ve for fai,ling ~o objecJ:, Ca,rgill must show that the· ta:ial jw;Jge wou_lf;i ~ave commi~e4 error ll.a4. ~e obje~on beeq m~e and · overruleci Martinez, 330 S. W.3d a:t 90 L &e a4o ABA Standards for C.riini'n.a.l J~#ce:- Prose~tion Function (3d 32 eq. 1993) (S~~d 3~5.2(a)) (~AS~ otneer ofth~ co~ th~ ptQsecmQtshould support the authority of the coUrt and the d.ig:nicy of the tria.I cotirtrOom by strict acihere;nce ~9 codes ofprofessionaHsm ~Qd by man_ife.stipg ~ prof~~i.on~l arti4.1.tl.~ toward thejudge; opposing counsel, witnesses, defeadantsdairor$7-and..others in the cO:UrttoOm."). 76 89 • • B. The S~te'_s M;i.sco.~duet the St:ate~s erro~ dUring Cargill's capltal trial may he· divided futo eight ove_rlappin:g ca~~~ri:e$J those b~_il)$~ (1) pro~ec~~ ~ific~pops; (7) SYIJlpa,thetic i'eferen~ to f.b,e vi¢m~ 31)~ (8) diminishing the. \ magnitude of the jury's r.espon8ibility. For organizationa.l pqrp~$~, ~h of U)~ categpries is ad~ssed 'below in its own sub~on. But while not ev~ ill;S~~ ofprosecutOriai.Diisconduct.maybe credited with working~ mjU$tice·in C~l_l'$ case, ~e breadth and audacity of the S.tate's eitor3 leave no qu~tion ti'S· ~o ~~l.r cmnulative eff~-namely, to 4eprive C~ll ~ b~· f\mcJamen~ C®S~:t!rtioga.l righ~ to a fair adjudic.ation of the cbarge·s l~ed against her. Se.e Guidro~ v. Lynauglr, 852 F.2d 83-~-, $37 (Sth Cir. 1988) (~~ssing the cumulative effect of the State's.lmpropet arguments tO determine whether the defendant was prejucij~ed). •. l'rosetJJtiPIJ T~tjfyi_~;~g to .Facts ·•nd Aslertions Not in Evi~en:c.e tltroUg.bom CatgHI;s capital trial,. dUring both the guiltfmnoc.en~ apd penalty p~~' ~e S~e t_estified to facts ·and ttequently offered iinsupported assei'tioos, both pra:ctiC:es in clear ViC;llation Qithe Texas Rules of Evi~.,c~ 1:1J1fi.,- wh~n considered in the broader context of the State's niis:condu~ a,t tri_al--'-Of Cargil.l's tight ~ @. fair trial. The piactlcai result W'as that the· State pei'Vasive.Iy testifiedjQr·their--w!:tnesses, often not aski1:lg 3-q~on but i~t~ off¢ing lengthy recitatiol'.l.~ ofthe State~s theory, tesfunony by oth~witn~.s~s, or other·f~ not in ev-i4~nc~. 33 33 Examples of times in which the State provided improper teStimony or impu_ted the Stat.e's theory of the alleged crime during either their dire(:~ or cross examination of Witnesses· dUring the gillltlin.D~ce pb3.SC- .are as follows:; Cory 77 90 • • Fo_r·e~ple, att ~chmlge b.etw.een ~e,pro~r·and Gina V~, ,.former ell)ployee of ~x,~_l St~g wb.o worked with Kim Ca:rgiil and teStified for the S.tate d,mng guiltf1Dl1Q.~~. ~~es as ·a.t ill~stration of the. State felt unfettered in ~ts examination of i~ •ee witl)e·$.ses .. The only to which ~ at issue in . point . the d.efen_s~'$ ~~-~~:t,ion of V~ w~ wf:l~er She had fitst cafled Cargill ~n Friday, J\Dle 18, ~010; ~Wld 8:30p.m.. (as Vestal testffi:ed) or· around 10:_30' PM (~·wa3 iQc;U~~ i.n tb.e pl)oo.@ re~ords a).ready admltted into eVidence). (See 43 RR at 94-95.) On its redi~ atld u,n:ab)e to reso•v~ the contradiction betwee:p. its witpess's ~on..y SJ)d its own eyid~ce, tb.~ St:ate proceeded to testify through the guise. of qu~sti Q. Th.ese -~ call$·~ sbe- is m_ak.ing here; startitig iike at 2 i :48. . She .:iJiakes one, she makes one, she make·s pile, site ~~ QDe, ~e makes o~ .she makes orte~ there:o-s a ~all coming in to h~. 'Ih* ~ ~ng ~ere4- ~~y? ~5~ seco.n4~, 525 second's, a rruliute; a Hoover (43 RR at 52,-54); Angie Grw.t.t.(43 RR~t 12:5-27); Witliam S~lnw:1;1 (43 AA. at ~0~, 22-5.;;28, '2-J-7, 251, 2-90, 292); Paula Wheeler ·(44 RR at .52, 100); La.:ry SniWl (45 lU. ~~ 1:72);- N~l M~ (47 RR a~ ~4); F~ Gart:~er (49 RR at 109); Brian Cargill (49 RR • 119)~ Kim:f,erly Catgi,ll (53 AA at 118-19, i32; 54 RR. at 19-20, 62-63); Brenda. Whitaker (54 RR ai 124); L.oren Puig (54 at 160-6·1).. A4.ditjol'\al ~iJ.Plpl¢$ of t)m~_::; ift Wi).lch t"Pe S~e ptovided. improper testimony or- Improper- penonal t:9mmer'i~ ~ Ut~ punishment phag ate as follows~ S~(ija Cra.ig (58 R,R ~ 16..$Q, J00,-04)~ Rachel Wilson (58 RR 157•64, 171--79, 185··91, 202, 206.-o7); April Pitts (5.8 RR • 21).7-ZS); S~aron Rushing (58 RR at 261 );· NQel M~in (59 RR ~J 11-16); Jo_tma Booi.cer (59 RR at 30)~ Barb~a C}:l~betlin (59 RR at 6.5•66)·; Mike W~ (59 RR at 101-02, 107); Sonja West (60 RR a~ 37, 4+4.6); L~igb Ann Henry (60 RR, 54-55)~ B~ Metri~ (60 RRa~ 97~98); Brian C_arg]ll (60 R.R at 13<>-31, 151, 153J;· Jamie; Cargill (60 RR at 175--76, 184; 61 RR.at 41); Matt R9l:>it\son (61 RR at 61..63, 89, 98); Iiil Lowe (62 RR at 104 ); Li~~ AJ¢~_c;t,I)4~r (~2 RR. at 114); W~ndie Turner (62· RR at 136·'38); Jam.es We~ver (63 RR at 18}; B.Qilrtie Weaver (63 RR at 60); Susana Aguilar (63 RR. at 240)~ .Stephen Rogers (63 RR at 269); Bobbie Maxey (64 RR at 52-53); Kimberly Bowser (64 RR at 90); Al:lto_in~¢ M¢~ (65 AA ~.t 69-80, 89-90; 132..42); Tim Proctor (68 RR at 50)~ Edward Gri~n (68 RR at 80-81, 93 ). 7-8 91 • • minl)te,, mbil:lle,,a minute, okay? ·some of them ate going voicemai.l". Others she's answering. L~e th~ l~ thtee righ.~ h~, a~ 10:~7, 52;5 ~~te~- I m~ seeonds. ·3.45 seconds, 65 sec ~ (Nodding.) Q. And I mean, this oriels lastlilg i6S9 seCob.ds, lOt seconds;, 200 secQnds, 560 S¢COnds, 1ZS seconds. And·y'~l.l are paylngl;ier, ~~·;t you, whi).e,she's ~ng ~of these calls? A, Yes. (Id at 97-98.) As tl,.e State continued ·to ask improper questions ofthis Witnes$, it al_sQ sei.z~.d tb~ OPP9~cy tg pQ~Y C~U as shiftless .and A. No. No. Hul:l-l1h· · Q. I.~~. Y®'ve paid h~r $299, o:rwh~v~dt ~s ih• c4y, to·m~eone; two, three·- well, one, two, thre:e, fom, five, six, seven, elght,rtine, tent 11, 12, 13,.14, is, 16,.17, 18, 19.,20,21,22,23,24; 2.5, 26, 27, 28., 29,"30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41., 4.2, 43, 44,.45~ 46, 47, 48- hold that one second for me;... 49, .s:o;sl, 52, 53. An4 then s,he ge~ off rigbt there. 92 • • So 53. And l?efore that, she gets ~o work • abQu~- wt,at.t:h~e? A.~ 6:4.5. Q. See tight here, she's at work. ·So 63, 64, 65, 66t 61, 68, 6·9, 70. 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77- 78 ~~ ~ 78 ~- whi.Ie=~ the .hospiW wnile $he's suppOsed to be caring for patients, an.d you're pay)ng.het 200-somethlng dollars a day. Does that surprise· yo·u? A~ Y~s~- A. Yes. (If!. • 98-99.) lli_e s~~,. st:ill coi:11inuir;tg ~ ~fy tlu'Q~ i~ wi~es.s· ~d ~~ end~O.P:Q$ tQ b~i~b CwgiJl thro~gh i~ improper ·q11eSt,1~::mJng,- tb~ b~ t9 baselessly .speCl,l,la~:, Q. B~ you're going to make $299 ~ ~y ari.d yoli .g~ to make almost 70 calls, some of them lasting -let~s.see-like take thi.s ~pe,; forip~_~ce right h~ ~I d.9n't )qtpw bow ~y secon_<}_s i~ weii-, l'm kind of scared to-add Without my phone. But Ilke- that;s the wrong page. Here's 5otite:on the 18tb:. Yo1,1 might bold tb~ for r_n~:on~ _n;1ore. t_iriJ.e.- Let'.s- give her the --let's say she took. half an hour for lunch. Let's give h~r the benefit of-a doubt and pick this one ri8ht here at 2:.17 on the 18th.. She-;s definitely not on lunch at 2;17, ane;l yo:u've got 1464 seconds. TruJ,t' s 24 m_in,_nes right there-; just for that one call. Hete;s anothe-r one ·doWn here 1,058 .secon,ds_.. lll.at c~.l rig!)~ there i_s l7 ~.in..~~~._. Just·in those two c~l_s, th~-'s the better part of 45 minutes .. that'.s -1 :mean, thafs not what y'~l- ~ wo1.,1ld ~ot bave been Q~Y withy'all. . A,_ Co~t.. 93 • • (Id, a~ 99-1 00~) J;)espi~ being a redirect ·exa:mlnati6ii-dudng which coUilsel is- subject tO the s~e rules a~:st l.~~ng quespoJ;~S a:s dUring a direct examiiuwoi'J:--tlie ·exchange with Vestal. fu.nctioned as an extended opportuJiity for the s~ tp t¢stify to ~~ ar,4 to ~e ~ertions \msup·ported by the eVidence.34 The State alSO used its guilt~innoc·ence direct examination of Hum.a Nasir, a . . fonmslc· PN~ ~yst -~~- ~hid Cellmark, ro engage in oompatable misconduct.. For e)Wli_ple,.th~ S~t~ we:nt og ~~ lengtll as· to .bow (~~~s· in4~den~ ·of' the· DNA an.alys.i:S wol.ild -~e (48 RR ·at 167~ft) the ·State ai89 itiv1~ N~i_r to $J'CCuX~ on the results that woUld obtain had a particwa:r DNA test been performed oil the door ~le t,o CargiH;s vehicie, a line-ofquestionitJ.g tha~ was both spe¢~lative Sl)d inappro·pri~~ (See·48 R,R, ~~ 172... 74.) The State •s direc~ e~uons of M~ed.ith ~n Q.u.ring tJ;le gu_ilt~i.nnocence phase and s·a:ndta Ciilig during the peilalcy phase often oCC;asio:ned no m:ote ~ ..... -PS verbatim readi . .. . . from. repo ... .. rts prep ..... ared . those . \vi messes. (See 51 RR at 49:..53-,· 58 34 Olm.~g Ut~ questjoni~g Qf a,notl)er Stale~s witness; the district att~m1~y himself had to. adiiilt, ~~ ha:ve, a problem With ieadl'ng, so i'm eying not to lead yo~}' ((;l RR, ~t 8'9.) 81 94 • •• R.R ~~ 7()-8(), 98:..1 Q1, l 03...()4; see g/~o 43 ·~ at 12:S~27 (comparabie error dUring ~ direct exami,nation of Angie Grant); id at 225 (comparable em-or dUiing the direCt examina.tlon ofWllllain Selmon, Jr.).) the State's exairiin.Won ofbr. La:nn, wl;lo perfo~~d Walker'.s autopsy, alsQ ·inclt:J,d¢(1 seyetal oth~ in~_ces Qf ~~Wly egregious gti8condu~ as when it solicited Dr~ La:im'.s opinion on the ~~~~~8$ Qf Cargill'·s de.feD;Se:· Q. And then you could have other S<:ena:ri.os. You COUld ·say, well, m~ybe it's possjble,thatthe olle~ Chei'I')' Walker""' who was obese, w3sn 't she? · A. Yes. Q. 'fhat $.l1:e t9'0k off on .B lcmg W~ Wlill.keg ~n r:nl.J~ ~ '8 place she dld.il't know, walked into a side ro~ f~[l over dead from a ,seizUre or some other reason, and somebodyjust ®me· along $t r;mdon;l ~d 9a:id, ~Look; there's a dead body; i think I~m goln,g to ~e this liquid ac~lcifall~ that I ·have with me, pour it on the ®dy and set :it on fire:." · D~s tha~ ¢~e _sen.se to you? A.. No . Q. Qr ~ybe i~ w~·tl)i_$, ~a..ybe s.h.e w~ ~4.btg around with someone; an91hey're talking to her In the car; and they're riding over there, theY're like, "Cherry, Cherry., yo.u 6ka.y?" And Cherry's bad ·a sei~ ~died in the car~ AI:ld tl:l~'re like; "'God dog, I'm going to qnve·out to a tertiQte lo¢ati,()J;I, dump tb,at 'pody out,.eve11 $'0~gh I've dqn_e ;ool;b,lng wrong, l;>uJ I'm goil)g t.o s~t tl:J,a~ body ()n fire:and.t;ry. to bidei~" . Doe~: m~;~~ s.eem m,lSOJ),ap_le t9 yoq? 95 • • Q. ~ .. State's E~bi~ 122 shows the body ~ i~ was fo~ with a cteamet top between the legs here, which had a profile ofthe def (Jr!.~ ·a~ 62), qr ~~iated two pieces ofevHienee w1thriut there. being any basis for d94tg~, Q. OkJiy. Iii the.defendant~s washer ..... X:'il represent to you her.house was le.s.s than pickcxl up_. There was:-~ lQt QfCip_th~$ tb~ cou.l.d hav~- been washed at one· tiiiie.: But there was one sheet.!ike that. in the~~ th,$ Yl&$ wet.. Wh~ th.ey o~~ i~ up, it ba~ a red stra,w fall ol,lt, which I'm not ·saying tM.t tb~~ wo)l_ld ~v~ ~I) the ~w Wrapper found by the- hy the bOdy of the victim.. I do:n't k:Iiow if it was or not. And I'm not representing that. · (/d. ~t ()6).• Worse $till, the Stat~'s redirect examination of Dr. L.ai:m dtwolv~ i_n,tp ~ ~~nd~ ~t:#io,n afthe Stat.e's theory of the- c~e, ;:!~ wbl~h Cm:gil).'~ ~al c:~l o:tf~d few objections. (See 51 RR ~ 1 ll-J9, 13'1.) Th~· witnes.s-'·~ ~ ~~ di~ not ~Sider ~e surfeit of facts an4 assertions raised ~Y the s·~~ to ~h her 4\i~opsy cor)cl~.sio!)S (see. e.-g.-, id at 130, 132}----eaimot reasonably be said to have cured the: Iffejue;Uce to Cargi.Ii nom the S~'s llilregUlated opportunitY to restify before· the-jucy. 2. DlS.pa.ra_ging Rern.~rks· Iri the State of J'e~ as ~isewt_t~, it is weJl~sta.bl~ed th~t .. ~ ac~~sed [m~st be conv1cte:d] .only upon the evide·nce preSented, without attempting to it:tfl_am~ orp~ud.i~e m.e m,ipd_s Qfthejurot:S::" S(tiilz-y. $(at_e, 49Z S.W..4._d 54~, ~51 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). Among the ~y ways in which the S.tate can enga~ in impraper argument is to debase a defendant through name-tailing and personal instilts. Gaffney v.. State, 931 S.W.2.d 540, 543 (Tex. App.-=-Te~~tana 1996)., Further,. tJte "wide l~t,itude" whjc.~ cow,sel el)joy wit~ th~y QI:aw i:Qfe~J:M::~s _d,:rril)g their closing ~ents is not without limitation, for these inferences must be I. 96 • • ':'~le, fa,it, legitim:at~ $11~ off~ ~ ~ood faith.'' Gw:/dis- v. St¢e, 153 S.W...2d3969398 (Tex. Crim. App. 19.88}_. : C~gi.U.'s ~~ t!iai W$8 repl_e~ \\'ifh i~~es 4t Which $e· State .m:ade disparaP1g an~ improper~~$ . ~~ ~e d~fen~~-· On seven occasions, tWo ofwhi¢h ()C¢urted during the S~~'s IDJ,il~-~OC~Ce OJ).e~ing argument and J;)efore Cargill ba4 ~e$tUie4 i_g, 11~ 9w.n ~fe.J)_se, $~ S~e ~ferted to the defendant as eith~r .a "liar" dr ·a "mm;rlpuJa~r.'-'35 ~ sPc: locc~oll.S--three t.im~ ~ closing argum~nts 'in th~ $W'lt-:-h.ln0ceti~ P.bas~, tQ/ee ~ 4Ul¥1g closing argumentS m tJJ,e ~ty p~~ St_a~ ~f~d to C~Ii as a "monster.'' (56 R.R at 127, Ul-; 69 AA • 93., 99, 109.) Equatly churlish was th~ State~s reference to Cqill ~ ~- -~P"ui~ b~'' and '~frui~ cake;" (5-6 RR at 29, ~1), and it drew a rate objection when, in its ~~~~i_n·@cm of Cargill, it --e4~ '-~[W]here is ""'" where Is the ten),orse? Where is the stres8? Where is everythirlg that comeS along with not being sociopathic?" (54 R.a • 13,74~ see also, 56 AA at 99 C'And let me make I something real clear. I never said She was sinart. I t:ldn:k. she '·s ~pid an4 a -1« of other things. How. dare she tie abo~t that ~ornm:t?'')J Even Qi1 the me occa5ion that d·efense c.ounsel did object and the m:n~k -w~ su.-.~, ~e ijl;tpact that th~ ·Js For example; 42 RR at 89 ([teacfipg; te~ ro~~~s] ·-~·s-orry I ~ssed y~ur calk I was sleeping.' :No, you weren't. Liar .. you're getting gas at 9: 16. y oti were. .. , . I . calJ;irlg Cherry Qn the pho~e ~ $:02. Y O\J w~· gamg ov¢.1" to pi~:\( her \ip and take· her out. Liar.;'); 53 RR at 117 ·(''But .... so you-:- so you're .~ylng nght here- I mean, when we're loolci.Jtg at w~ether you Nally are a li.ar· ~d. a rn~jp~~or ai)d you look on thi_s LVN applicat_ioo"); 56 AA a~ 37 ("Ar.td yo~ l. 97 • I • ' Statement bad on the jury was already accoD;iplished. It is a beli ~ c~o.t be un.~· .nmg.. However one might de$ctihe. the S.we'.s tre$n~nt of Cargj)J.-.,....tactical or imprmlen.t, plannef;i or ijl;lprovi.~ese· ~g rer.narks ~~ C~g{J~ were neither tasteful nor "fair. (See e.g. during th". direct ~ of SQ.pj~ We.~ wb~ the wit:ness evi:c:J~-~ce ~d e~~our;-aged the ju.ry to base ~~ senw.n¢mg determination on notions of divirte:retrlb~on"). While not. directly calfmg ilpOn the j-ury to ailoW" its fa:ithto m..tluenc¢- its d¢ision-m~ing, .the Sta~e m~de repea~ ~fer~~ to GQd, partic:uiarly "in ways calculal"ed to arouse the jury's sympathy· toward the de«dent In the Sta.t~·'$ closi.ng srgu.merit dWing the g(ljl~-iJ:inoc~·e phase, it repeateciiy and itiipreperiy alluded to divine providence~ 98 • • • ''Wei), you want. to .kilow what .I thihk her word 'crappy' is?. That she'd leave. a fout•y$1'-old 'With Cherry W~ket, God bless· her soul-, who her own fal)'li_ly says ~he ought not to keep foui'•year•olds." (56 RR at 116.) • '·'-Nld th~ ~~~o\l$ly, Cberry W~er; at 2j·3 - God bless her - 233 pounds, and by the time this trial is over, I;ll probably be about th~ s~e, She's not gofug to fit in the floorbQartl of a Montero. How do~ that work? Sbe ~d SJt~ fell comple~~ly ou~. ." (14. at 1.25:.) o '·'She bas: to ~t wna~ I~w ep~~nt bas· don~.~ M.d. to you aJl·, I· say gr~· job. ~· you.. Praise God. Pepple. who kn9w me know this,. :an4 you'li know, Preacher." (ld at 127.) • ''I say tllls:- 'You know how we. tig\ire it ow:?.. Some.times it's the hand of God.. I tbfuk be does Uke tbjs· ov~ a cqfJ.e.e- crean:t~ (dell)(.lt:lS~g). Says 'Burn the;.~ Le.f;lve·~t.. They,(l figure it out.' That's what 1 think~" (id. at 128.) • "Cherry Walk~ wu t;,ot dispos~l~. She. wa:s not trash. She was a pteeloils · ch(lc;J of Go4 who 1ltld nobo(ly to cot_ne to her resc\1~ until today~-. And you're it I'm.passing it to yQu. I can-~t d~ any more." (14 Jt 1.35:.) Moreover, the. S~te. us~ the oppo~ of closing argument to sp«_ulate as ~o W~l~er'·$ m~~ -.te ~t the time- of'her d~ath while again lnj~mg teli~Pous· theme·s into the proceeaings, sayin:& Dear (Jc)d., [Walker]'s a child in a 19-year-old body; and she's· terrified.. She's going to do eXactly what.Paul:a [Wh~lerj', whQ knew ~er· b~t-, s.ai4.. Sh~'s ju$~ goipg t9 t.~~ ~~ever tbat monster dished out. God, l Wis.h I had ~ there. ($6 IUt a~ 13'2), a..n9 [Walker] would just sit there and take it eyes forward, like a little 19d:; Do .you ~ she ~k~cl for h~ ~4y? OQ yo~ thi~ s~ sajd, "Pa~la, I tpld .You"?. Do you think she prayed? "Ple.ase, God, · help me.;; AU b~e she got. a piece of p~. Her crime· was honesty. "I g~t a piece ofPWe~.'' ·· And God inade her in a special way, a little bit different. She had a s(oweJ:' m~d th~ ~rH)st, 98 percent of the pepple, b1P sh.e 3 bigger be·~. tAa.n jl:l:St:about everybody~ · ·· . 86 99 • • (Jdat 133). The State'.s invocation of religion ~ ·no~ U.mi~ed t.o the ~il~~ innocence· phase. lrtdeed, every aspe.c1: of the swe's ·pa:m11:)' ph_~ presen~tion embraced these allu.sions--openirlg st,at.ero~m (e.~~•. "M9St imJlOrtant tp m~g!icm, is [carglll] has. hUrt. physically and emotionally the children God ~ye h~~o Pl'Ql~, . . 58 RR at IS);, the qu~Qning ofwi~~s~ (e~g.., ~no you thjnk. that h~ail bell.lgs have the capacity to change? ... Maybe \.Vith GQd's il)t~ssi~ for w~~ver reaso;n," 64 RR at 81); dosing ·s:tatein~ht (e.g., "Sh~ tpa~ Cherry's abil_ity to ever gil u.m to her ~dy pre_ach ·ag~ to ever ~i1;1g a song 1n church .... ," 69 AA ~ 109-1 0). And, much like the gUilt-~ocenc:e p~ tb~ St$'• ~ty phAse clo.$iilg. argQ,m.,eni was sh~ (bro"Q~. with ref~~-~ lo Gad, as w~en Mt. Bmghain opined, "'We all have out life. It b.~longs t9 us, given to us by Gc;xl.: Th~'s ~y bel.ie£ Wh• [Cargili] dld is &,e ~k (W:~l_J~er;s]. She took her life." (ld at 21.) Not dissimilarly, M.s.. S.~~-s ~sqille<:J W~ik.er (1$ "an angel sent from God" and C,lQsed witf:t th~ fre.ight~ intQiiatiOI); '-'May Qod forever rest the precJO\)$ sOtJ.l Qf Ch~W~~/' (Id at ll3.) As with the Stat~'s disparaging r¢m;ar~s· against Cargill, i~s ~~-of teli~Qus Jinagery to impel the. jury to conVict Cargill and to .sentence her to death based on conside~on:s il.ldependetn of ti;t.e evidence ~duced at trlal constituted prejudicial e.rror, tb~ ~er·c~ct~~~ an:d ~ten~e ~ust- be set ~ide. 4. Sidebat Com.,.ents and Other Expressions of Pea:-s~nal Opi.,..on Te~ ~'-w reco~~s ~ ~- i~ ~~D:ll.l'Pt:J:~d when a prosecutor makes improper, inflammatory, and preju_diCial sidebar·reri:t~s, see Cazares v. S.ftJtf! 488 7 S.-W.id 1i.O, 1r2 (Tex-. Cnm. App .. l972}~ Crawford v..State, 412. S.\V.2d .57, 59 (Tex·. Crim. AJ)]). 1967), and the ABA 's Standards for Crimi'n4.1 Jf#tice admonish that "[a] prosecutor sheuld _riot knoWingly an_d {ot t.lfe p~·se of brlPsffi$ inadrni~jble mauer· to the attentjon. of the judge or jt,~.ry offer i_l)a@lissible 87 100 • • .. evid~n:ce, ~ J~lly obj~n!lbl~ qP.estj_QDS; or make oth~ i,n,tpermissible CQtl)ments or·~el)tS in ~e p~n.c.e of-~e judge or j'ury;" AaA Standards for Ci"fm.i1rgl Jus_tl._ce: Pros~c¢io_n Func,ti~n (3d ed. 19.93) (Standard 3~S.6(b)). At Cargil.l"s trial, the State':s violations of Ul~e le.p_l ~~ prof~ssiQ11.81 requirements. were unremitting and ranged from tlie banal (see, e,;g.-, ·58 RR ._ 159- 60 (regarding Wb.:etber ·tn~ di:sf;ricl ~o~ey himself ever u~~ a p~cu)_ar expression);. 59 RR at 30 (regarding th'e- ctistriet at;tomey'·s ~~s prof~j9"- S:S ~ te$Cb.et)~. 68 RR at· 93 (regarding the·dlstnct attorney's medication for ·Ei. s~pect~ S1Iep throat 'infe<:tioli)), to the int~perate (s~e, e.g~, 4.6 RR ~~ llS (~Well_, she's not conferring With il'ilrses about the great care she's giving wher patients, beca~ that phone CQ.LIJ~ ~til 1.1::05.'-'); 54 RR at ·s2 (''1 can assure you, Ms. C3I'gi_n, I never know or care what you have on.")), to: the s.arca®.c (se.e, ~.g., 53 RR ~ 66, 162), to even commenting on the answers solicited from Witru~sses (.s:~, e.g.,. i!l. ·• ll9;.53.RR at 140 ("I m:ean, everyth~g is-.it's like the perfect ~orm·~ you.. 'Dang, she's having a s.eiZu'r'e; My'phone -ll.eft my·phone at the house."');'.53 RR at 121 ("Tb.~'s ~ hoo~:, Cal.lfug D)~ -a lia,r?")).~ These·~ cc:>ntr.i~ to t;h.e p_atrcmizing atm:osphe.re surroun4ing C~gill~s tti~ and, i.n conjUJ:t~on \\jth tb,e State's co:untl~$ o.ther ¢ttoi'S h.-e mention~d, WC>rke.d tp d,eptiv~ Ca.!JiU. of ~e fair ~-~ to wb.i_ch ~e ~ ~~~~le4. s. Miirepreselita.ti~il Qf the State's Rote In addition to the- above-mentioned ·improprieties, the State. also misrepresented its· role. in the ca$e. ~gibtst Cqfll dunng ln 88· 1.0 1. - • • not the p.etsoil alleged to have been ha:rmed by the defendant. Su TEX, COP6 CRIM .. PRoc. art.. 2.01. The Sta:te also rna~ a cOmpa:r:able ~tem~t t9 VertirepetSC)n Burd~w.h.en .t.inti~d ~.it represented th~victim, sta~g: "!-We don't have:aiiybody.sltting here With u:s [the State]. She':s dead." (10 RR at 185~) A th"i.rd exa.,;nple of the· S~te's Improper conduct arose· in its q·uestioning of Mr. Bell, :a veriite pei'SOn Who, like Ms.. ·Reeves~ later was -sel~~ Jo serve on Carg{ii' s jury. _to :Mr·; Bellt the prosecUtOr- offered:. "You know, I told _you earlier~ Ch~r:cy Walker w~s a real live h~ be4't$, o~t sQ..e's not .~tfulg here· because she's d~.'' (13 RR a:t 64-65.) While it iS unclear exact~y What the prosecutor had in ro.i.n4 Wh.CIJ ~e mvol.<~d th~ w()TCJ "bere~" o~e may· fairly ptesUtile that "here''. m~~ "with the State" in view ofber earlier questioning ofVenirep~ B~ The . . of. Criminal . Court . has stated that an·y s'i1 - .. . App.eals 3 nestion b 'we6 y the .State to the jury which contradiCts Article 2..tn of the Co® of Cr4!;iil'.lpl Procedure is "erroneous, whether It occurs dUring voir dire. final argument, or soroe other ir:np~t s~e oft,he m~·'' DraughoJ:t v.. State, 831 S.W.2d 331, 336.(Te~.. Ctiin. App. 1992) (citing Rougeau v. State, 738 S.W;2d 651., 6.57-~(T¢~. Crl.ro~ Apt;~· 1987)). It 1s altog.,ther re3SOJUlble to conclude that, wtthout these and so m.an:y oth~r insumces of prosecutprial m.iscondtlct ~t.irig the proceedings ·against Cargill, the result other capital t.rla.I woUld have been different.. 6. lmpr.oper Cb·anenging of an Expert's Qilallticarioni As suggested previou.sly, the S'tate's. it;npropri~es w~~ not ~o~fi_n~ to i~s opening and closing atg\lmertts but also contaminated its questioning ofwitnes~s. fo.r e.~_;mtpl.e,. @ -~~ q~~.stion.in~ of defeu~e e_~pert A.n~Qtl)et~ M~~~ a forensic psychologist, tl:te State sought t;o challenge the qu.alificatiol)s Qf ~othc;r def~ e)C~rt. Jona.than Lipman, a neUropharrn.acologi~~ who by tb.~t paint i.n ~., pro:c:eedings had .notyet taken the stand to offer te.stimony: 102 • • Q. Wel.l, i$ it som~~g--·~4 tbe r;ea.s911l'~ asking you is b~ a nelll"()}lhan:ftacologiSt [st.'i~ 8$ Dt. ~.ip~] is not a medic;:al docto~'they're np~ ~ p$Ycholo~P~-or; Qbyiously,a p_sy~hi•tr:i;~ So they can't, I dati't.believe, aSSeSS patientS, prescribe m~ication, do anything of that~· }:lowev~r, you do assess patients and ~ clinical diagno$es. (65 RR • ~9~70_..) La~et~ Ute S~a~ ~gai_il re~ed t9 this line of qiieStioiiliig~ Q. BUt he [Dt. Lipman]- he's really- he's not- and ~'s w,h.y I'm .,..rro t,oing tQ nn4 ou.t wh~ re~y J.()(,),ks -a~~~ bea1use he's not a doctor. He: has no llcense from Whi~h he testifies tinder that I know of; He can't assess patients. He c.an't pres_qibe medication.. And SQ I d~ 't --I d_on't )Q)ow ~t ne c:an ~;ty as to:... you know w.h• I'm saylr:t~.,... Wjth thes_e ·dj_s~td~_. (65 RR at· 79.~) The appropriate oppn$nity· to- c.mul~ge an ~rt'·s ·q~c~c::u~~ ~s ~ R,ule 705 hearing, a hearing which :r:u~~~sarily-~ pi_~ \'IViij}out.tJl,e ~¢liCe of the jmy. Moreover, the State's error ~- •ll the rnore <;gresious f9.r bavlne "poisoned the well,'' viz., it disptrte
m~n~jnblg tJt.•. s,he ~ not -a neUJ'opharmacologiSt. and therefore unqWililied tO answer the State's que:sP,ons. (See 6S RR at 69•76.•) LikeWise, the Stat~·~l,ced Dr,- McGatrah&,n abQm. tbe effect C~ll's medi_~ condi~Q.n_s wouJd h~ve on h~r behav.ior an4 m_e~~l ~ even though Dr~ McGarrah~ indicated that a medical doctor wo:Wd be· a fat more approptiat:¢ e*rt to apswer tbose que5UOJ:l$•- (See 65 AA at 85-92.) 103 • • y.,____ ......... - .. 7. s m· thetlc ·Refenoces to tbe ViCtim c·Iaim Two, alite, c:iiscu.ss·es the improper introdUction of victim impact eVid,en~~ i:n~ tb~'gv.il~-ij;liipc~e pha$e ofC~ll's trial.. Those errors. by the State were compounded, however, ~y the prosecutors' ~ated suggestion during the !N.ilt-inP~ence: phase ~~ Cb~ny Walker--ihe· thirty...ni'n~year•old decedent-. was '~a chfltr or "childlike": • ~-~sh~'$ a ~hil4 m. ·a.p -~4:u.l~ bOO.y:t (4~ M ~- 67.) • "A!l(i be~ a, ehi_ld ~ ~ a4ult's body, Cherry sai~ 'Sure, ok.ay [t'(l wa~h ~~e]. '" (42 RR ~t ~l.) • "[W]o.uld _you have found Cherey Wa)lcer· to _be cbildlil ' 104- --.- .. • • • "And I'll tell yo:u [th:ejmy] this: When you go get an.M.R. babysi.tter; who's men~ly- the mental· equ.lvalent of a yQW,.g child ...'' (56 AA ~54.) • "I t9ld y' ~ [the jw:y) In voir dire, the ones 1 qUeStioned, that anybody that kr)ew me.l J;v~n lf SQme of tbese retl~ret:t·ces mlgbt be justln¢4 to support the State'·s theory that Cargill had strang!~ a pliant Walker as the latter sat in the passeng« s~ of C~g~ll's Mits)Jbishi MonterO; the preppnderance· of th~e tefeten~.es are better understo:od as:improper attempts by the State to·tug a~ the heartstrings oft)le jury. AcCQn:iingly, CargiJJ'·s COiiv1ctioil fot the mutdet of Walker should be. reversed. 8. Dimiillshing the Magnitude of· the Ja·ey~s Res·ponslbility in Caldwell v. Mississippi, the Sup~e CQUrt o~ed that 'fmany of~ lim1ts that this· CoUrt has placed oil the lmpositian of capital puniShtiumt a:re rooted i~ ~ co~~$ ~ the sentenejn~ procesS s,ho'uld f~cllitate the responsible and reliable exerd'se ot sentencing discretion." 472 U.S. 3.20, 3'29 ( 1-985) (citation,s omitted). Although CaldWell concerned .a. prosecmot's lrnptoper argument w the jury that its ~Jo.b is reviewable,., an argument which thereby re4ucing the wei'ght of responsibiljty the jury ~ould feel in m;aki_ng its· set:t~~ci.ng d~em.Ji~ti9n; id. at. 34~ (internal quotations: omitted), shltli'ng the Ju:ry's sense of r:espPJ1Sibil_ity to aJ:1 apPeflate court is not the only means by wtuch the imjxutance of itS role may be diminished. Indeed, the CoUrt or Crlnili.la1 J\PP~.$ re(:O'gl)i~ d)e ~der im_pljcat.i.ort.~ of C4Jriwe# when-, in DrQ'I!.ghon v. State, lt observed th~t "teliabiiity of the decision tQ impnse death 'is reduced impennissibly when, a:mong other· 105 • • reasons, jurors· are misled intQ believing ~t their d~~i$ion may be l~!;~s m.ome1:1~ous thanlt~)yi's_}' 831 s. W.2.d331,337(1)~~:· Ctjq,... A.pP.-1992). l.t) i~· cJQ$_i,r,\g ~en~ ch:uii.tg tQ.e p~alty phase of Cargill's capital triai, the State tna~e tbe fol_lowmg. $re.t:rl~~s t~ tJl~ J~:: Jlijs ~e is1_1't hMd~· Yo-q:'re not e~e~mitJ.g anybody. You tre not tiiliing iiiid shiiiildet1ng responsibility for tin)ithlng.. She made tl;l,ose c.h.c;»ic~$ o~ ~~e I 8th-. She bo"Qgb~ and paid for those ·a.n.swei'S_. She did ft. And she bQugh~ and paid for lt With her ha~ujs around t.l:l,e neck of Chetty Walker.. She bQugbt and p~d fQI" that "yt$," ~no" answer when she took lighter fluid . . . showed you how she did It- and squiJ:tt,d it c:;p. tbe bOc:ly, tb~ still-warm body ofCJ;terry W~~r. (69 RR at UO-ll (emphasis added)..) Altnougb the first· str;~t.ement is a mat.t~ of interpretation and the· second statement teclinically t:tU.e, the third statement is an uneqUiVocal ahl:ogati,on Qf the ju.ry's ~l;on$ib1Hty to rqch ~ $el1~~4'ig· detetmJ.tiatlo.n based 'U.p0l11ts appreciation of the faCts adduced. FUrthermore, the State Ca:r1:[,19t be said ~o have cured i.t$ error by going on to cilscuss Ca:rgill's choices, for.:...-and this be.ars ~peatiD;g---the St~te'·s blanket statement tQ the jUry Was that it wo.Uld not ~ ·•'takfug and shouldering responSibility for anything." ld (~mpb_~is- ~.de4).. In like fashion, the State also sought to diminiSh ea-ch juror's sense of 'i'ts re.spc>~~~~_iity~ore prec~e~y, th.e a;n~a.ns by whi~h. each juror was to carry o.ut its respons1bi'lity--4:;y arguing to them that emation should factor into their decisl.on• .ptalQ.I)g,. Thl.s the State did in its dosing 8:i'gUment dUring both the guilt-h'u.Jocepc~ phase and the penalty phaSes of Cargill's trial,. saYing, And if [the as~rtion that Cherry Walker died of a seizure] doesn't make you mad,. it ought to. lt ought to infuriate you.. It's pjtif\tl. It's p_athetic tb.at she can c_ome in here in this court oflaw, -after I've worked for tWo years with that Sheriff's Of_Hce out there, m:~d throw i~ ou.t there, and her·laW)'er go, well; would you jump out of a. pla,rte? Who cares aboUt a plane? 93 106 • •• (56 AA. ~ 99), anci And .. she chose to take that .stand. m;td lie to you abo.ut it. That o1,1gb..~ to m~e you ma4~ It re~ly ought to-. (69 AA •105). ..&It is of vital iinp<)rtance to the defendant. an4 to the c_()mmunity that any deeision to impose th~ deam sentence be, and a_ppeat- to ·~x; based on reason rather than caprice or emotion_.". Gt;zrcirter ~- Florida, 4.30 U,$.. 349, 358 (1977). Cons!Stent with tliis expectation, the ABA Staiitli:zrtb for Criminal .lz4tice call upon pr:os¢cutor:s to '1-e:f}'a.i,n from a:tgument which. wauid divert the jUry from its duty til decide the C3Se ort the evidence/' ABA Standards fr,Jr Crirftinill J~~~:: .. Pr.asecution Function (34 ed. 1993) {Standard 3-S.S(d)) .. AQC·otdingly, there can be no do\ibt.as . to the iiif' ·· --·~ of. the Proprlw:•J .. . at·gum . ·Stateps ·· · ent. to the . . y ~o''"l.t . . that. the . J'ilrortl . ~-~- to" he angry with Cargill for having mounted a defense to the capital charge, and,. in con:ll;>~tjo~ wi_th tb.e ~:um¢.rable ~ ~ addressed, these errors CJ'Qde confidence fu the fairness of the proceedings against C31giU.36 See aho Swn_mers· v. State, 1-82 S. w. id 720, ti2 (Tex. Crim .. App. 1944) (wrhe accUsed is entitled to a fajrtrial w.iUlou~ reference to ·ou;tsfd,e i_nflue.nce."). c.. Cc;nehasitt'n Throughout eighteen <;lays of tri~-::-;n~~rialized in over 5,000 ~g~s of transcriptj_on--the pr-Qs_ecu~ion routjnely and varioU;Sly n~giecte4 its. unqualifl«< obligati_oi1o to C!nSute ~~ the procee4~-~gs agai_nst· Cargill were fair and th_e. ou~come ~ her c~ re_hably reac_hed:. Th~ S~t~'s e_rrors were; in short, ~:(ISiVe; 36 Like th.e S~te's oth~ mi_scon4uct during closing' argument, the errors c_omplained of here are of particUlar concern because 4'[s]tatements 107 • $jgnitie,an~ anci effeqiv~. But for th,is IJ.1.iscond~ct and the prej\14i~ "it en~, the juzy'.s· verdict cluring either the gu.ilt.,:irmocen~~ ·ph~ or th.e pep._al_ty P~-~e likely would not bave dts~vored C~. Accordingly, the weight of theSE=. errol'S and. the interests ofjustice requlre tl\atQu-sill's ~ ju~:y's·tm~~diXl~J'ofth.~ evi.cJ~.~e •mp~gj_ngtbe m9.r8l ~\ll~bil_ity of a d~f~t).qant is critical to ~ j~'s co~i.d~ra.~9n of the appropriate pWlishmen~ for a capi® offense. Mitigati.~g evj~n~ i3 not d¢velop¢c;J to provide. a defen.~e: to the crime· Or to challenge evidence of guilt; nor is it an excuSe or explailation for .a crime. Inst.~, it prc;>vid~s a con~e~~ fQr tb.e ¢.r_ne by d~~cnbU,t$ ~ ~9jv14~~ 's life· experiences that serve to inspire (:9"rtlp.assi.O'n, empathy, mercy, a:ndlo;r undeQ.tanding. Indeed, 95 108 • .rnitigat4lg ev!dence Is any eVidence: that "might serve ..as a. basis for a s~entence less tha.J:l death.'" 'Ten'np.rd v. DJ'e(/r.e, .$42 u. s. 274, 287 (2'004) (qtiQtin$ Skipper V; South Carolina, 476. U.S. I, 5 (198.6)) (emphasis added). Th~ failure of tti~ cou.nsel tQ PN.$~t \~y Wjtn,es;ses at the pon.ishnient phase· of CMgiii's capital tria.1 prejUdiced Catglll's plini'shment pha;$e presen~~on ~4 vfol~d her applicable state and federal Constitutional rights, as well as. state sm.rutory l~w and state~ law. therefore, Catg(ll's d-.b s~ce sb.puld be vacated. ~ T~ Counsel Fa_iled t«> Present a Co~p~bensive P.eture of Ca~g)Ii''s Life· Jljstory Durin1 the Puliisbm,nt PhJise.ofU:er C.apit.a_l Trial The State ptesented forty-one Witnes.~ ®ring:tbe pllllishrn~nt~~ TJ,.~se witnesses spaniled Cargill's iife IUstory and 'included Cargill's. own tamily memberS; ex-husbands $11.0 in-laW$; three of b~ fo~ chjl~; forr;ner fiien~ and neighbors} teachers from bet children's .schoals,; peace.o:fflcers involved in prior arrests of Cargill; and county J~l co~on.al off;ic~J:S. AI.l of these wt1DeSses testi:fi~ in y~g detail ail~ intensity, t~ the t{etriment they SllffeJ:'ed as ~ ~It of ~eir int~cti~s with CargiU.. M_any ·Wim..~ ~~bed mcid®~ o.f ~~ vloltmce, ~4 ~motJ~ wrotQU tb.~y exp.,ri~n~e4 bee~· of CargliJ's volatile ~vi9r~ .(SS-68 RR,passjm.) Alternatively, the defense presented at punishment two persons to rebut the prQSecp.tio~'s· ~on ~~ Cami.ll had co~tra.band in her jail cell while awaiting tri81; four cdrrectional officers who tcs:tined C.argjiJ d,i,d nc:>t ca:use pro,Ql~ • the county jail; a fellow inmate who testified C~Jl was kind and compassionate tQ her~ ~d two experts=-~ foren.sic p8ychologist and a neuropharmacologist. The d~(~ cijd got pre.s,eJ;tt ~ .singl~ wi~ess who knew Cargill priQr·to h~· an-est or h.a4 a,n.y Wr59n~ CQilJ,l~t;iol) t.o CargilJ's coi;llp)icateq and tumultuous life histoty. the result was that the jury heat~ the singular and one;..sided Stozy of a woman who 96 109 •• • ere~~ ~~ ih tl)e·liye.s· of everyone -~ encoun~ ~~ ~ viQ~eiit, ~busive, and cnu~l to thQSe w.ho ·w~ cl~ t.Q ~~- ·lJUs was @ ina~ PO~)'~ of Cargil_l and enonilously prejudlciai. Proft;.s.si counsel should consider inclu® wi1nes$es familiar With and eviden~ rel~:ting ~ the· client's Hfe· and devel()pment, nom cail.Ception to the time of" sentencing,. that would beeJq>hm;atory· for·th'e·.offeru;e for·wJ.U~b tb~ ~li~ is ~i~ ~ced, wouid teb1.J; or explain eyi_dence wesented by the pro~!,"~ Would ~~t PQ$i.tive aspects o("the· c:;~ieJ1~:·~ l{fe, or woUld otherwise- sllpP&rt a sentet)ce less than death .. ABA Quidelirzes, G~4~li,ne lO.Il(F)(l)~ PoSt.-convictlon investigation has revealed a number of Witnesses who had fir$t-hMd J,u,:owledge of t;ratir,i;t• ~~giil su«~r~ dutlhg the· .colirSe· of her life in~lt,t:drng p,are11t~l ~:Ij~n~~lon. of a:f(¢c~Q.,_; ~~ ab~d()~!I!Qt;· pareQtal physical :and emo.tional abuse; adol~cent se=1mal -~U.I~~ ~"4 phy~cal. emotior:tal, an4 psychological abuse. by a spoliSe. These Witiie!Ses. were. avatlable and wflling to te~tify on, Cw~P.U's ~~f ~egarding not only the details of the traUI!lay but .also to the simnfic~ effe~ the trauma had on CargiU's emo.tional development .an~ percep~~o:n oftl)e Wor.l4 a:rouJJ,c;l her:. Tria.J coutisd's, faHute to uncover detailed Iilitjgating. infonn·ati·on trorn family m~mbers and friends about Cargill's background, a,nd sup~uent faiiure to 97 110· • • pres.ent these Witnesses at the: pun.iShm~ pltase QfC8JliWs tri~ prej~di~ed C~ in tWo ·ways. Fit(t, ,a:s- a resUlt of not l)~g ibis IQ.nd of criti~ ml.tjg~ora evic;l.e,;~~e, tb;e qnly u,:t,~~rs~di~g. t,h~· j~ry h~d of Cargill's background and life histocy was thro:ugh the tiltt:r of the· S.tat~'·s ~v~ti C~gill h~elf, (>f ~Y kind of trauma or other env!ronni~ntal factor'S ®cuni.ng or w_h,:at the effect might have been on Cargill's eJilotioJJ~ ~d PsYClt:PlQgi~ devel9pit:l~~-- 'Illete were ~ .~!llDJJ:~r of l.~y Witil'~s.s.es wil.Jii;J.g to F.Qvid.e Dr~ McGarrahan w!th the necessary background information that she lacked 1n order to contexruaiize ....... ......... and ·· rt her ... stiPPQ. ... belief . .. that ···n sUffered frOm some kind of earl:y .... Catgt trauma. Not presenting this te$imony was prejudi-cial and denied Ca_rgiU h~r constitutional right to a fair trial. 111 • • B. C3.Wl S~e.~ trro~ T~uma Dtiiiilg ChildhoOd, Adoieicence, aud EariY Adultbood TeStimony from l~y Wittt@S.e$ wo~d have estJbli.sJ.l.ed th~t IG,nb_erly c~gi_U~s31 life was rii8rked ·by instability ·and dysfunction from its early origins. Despite- the outWari:J appearance ~ si)e h.ad ~ supportive and loving home environment, Kimbet\Y'.s development was rooted in ins.ecurity and f@.lit1gs of ~-~qi)ffien:t, both by adults who were a censtant. presence in her life and those who were entirely .absent. Tills woUld have a noticea.J;Jle itnpa¢t on ~ re~ of her ii.fe ap.d aJ)ii_icy to f~ and maintain positiVe and fulfilling mterpetsonal relatiQJJS)lips.• i.. ~~bei'ly 1$ I.\orn IIi to a Chaotic and Unstablt Family EnVii'onmeet .Kimberly was born to Eddie Upt;cm Md IU~b~l D~~. Uptcm38 ~ Nov ~ 7 For ease· of reading all persons in ~ioils B and C of this Claim will be tefetred to by their fii'St names,. inchiding Khnber~y CargilL 38 Rachel Wilson t~fied for the Sta~ at the punishment: p~e Qf tri~. However, she was intervi.ewed multipie times by the def~n.se and the mfortnat.ioil c.ontajrieQ. here could ha:ve been properly elicited during cross-examination. 99 112 • • J;ather-th.an his Wife. Mam~ge wa$ a wa:y fot R.$.$,el to escape her father's hou.~. (Ex. 11 a:t ,13-5 [Aff.ofLt1cy Scoggin].) Eddie also had a complicated family situation. Eddie was .sent. to liye With foster p·a:rents when he was· five yeljts old an4 ~yec;J wi~ them undl adw~Qod... His biological patentS sUffered from drug and ·alcoh rr:tere fiv~ weel,c~ old, l~vli:J,g ~ct;~l to cafe for the bab.y ()n her own. (Ex. 11 at f7 [Ai.f. of.I,..~cy ~coggi;~]; ~:~ 14·~ Tlf9-10 (Aff; o.f~h.el Wils~n].) ~chei.worked a full-time job at the phpne ®mp~y, taking the 3.:.00 tO u~oo p~ bite shift While Rachel woike:d Kim~r~y Was left in the care ofher teenag~ aul)t. S~~ ~~ E4Aie'$ d.epartJ,J;re, Rachel stM.ted, seei.ng Ke@¢th Plt:ts.~ ~~¢t,l_t WB$ -a ~~~~at¢ of both Edd.ie and ~achel and. EQ.die's best fi:itm:d. Rachel often stayed out with Kenneth late at night after het work shlft ended. (Ex.. 11 at. W7-8 (Aff. of Lucy Scoggi_n]. ) When Eddie returned from National Gwd trairiing he was ·a different ~on:- He~ an4 w~ ~llsive tow~ RacheL (Ex. 14 at ~10 [Aft of Rachel 100 113. • • Wilsgn].) It w.as yery diffi;c.l:llt fQr eddJ~ ~- ~e R,a.ch~l AA4 Kennetlt t~gether because Eddje .3Jl4 Kenn~tb. were such clo's:e fii~nds. Eddie tOok; ·a s~ -~ Kenneth after seeigg IC.¢~edt ~~ ~el out at a bar Qne n:ight and .spent a riight in jail..(Ex.. .11 at· ~ [Af[ of"L_1,1~ ScogginJ.) SOoi:l att~ :e44Je' s repn:n RB.,chel fi1ed for dlvorce~ Eddie did not want the. divorce and the procee until she was nine years old. The revelation was disclC>sed to Kimberly ·ina casual 101 114 • mann~ by Rft.cbel ~ ~i,nberly remarked 1;lt~t she wopdered why she did not look lik~ K~~tb. ~.. 14 at ~13 [Aff. Qf~hel ~ll$on].) L~ .I ma:tkin~ of physical violenc:e ~oligb. ~t Te~na lat~ wi.sl:le:ci sl:te ~ad :rqrorted the ir):c.i.dent to ~eone:0 Teen.~ saw bruises oft KiiiJberly's arms when they clw)ged into gym clothes at school. $~e.raJ. ~~ Kim.berly took a dedUction in her grade rather thari change clothes. and risk the· other- girls seeing th·e m~ks on her body. (E~. 8 a~ m!4..5 .[Aft of t eena Livengood).) ~imberly also $:Ufferec:i fr()n;t ~ve~ signi_i;i_~~ hea1m cnse$ during childhood. Wheu K1rnb¢rly was twelve years old she contracted meningitis. The 102 115 • • family had recently returiied from vacation and Kimberly was at softPall p~~@ whe:n. the coa,ch called Rachel tQ report th~ K~berly w~ not feeii.IJS we.il_. Kimberly was feverish and c~y and was voiiiitfug. Kiniberly was rosbe_d ~ th~ ejriergency roQtn ·atld ~ spinal Wp was p~rl'onned. Kiinberiy was ln. quarlmtine briefly and then remaiiled in the hospital for several w.eeb. Wl;l,ile ~ the hospi.W . . Kimberly contraCted a strain of mu.iilpS whiCh resulted in tinnitus and. hearing loss mon·e· ()f het· ~-· (&.. 14 at ,14 [AfT. of ~hel WUson]..) l\.41:lJ:>erly contiQued to be plagUed With medical ~blems even after.recoverilig from the acute meriingjtis. Getting w~ll w~ a p~.$ tli.at took clos¢ to a. year\ Because the lining of the spinal w·sue in her tailbone was affected, Klm.berly had a ~ffiet1lt time sinh.lg down. :K."irilhetly had another episode Where she temporarily lost control of her lower ~tremlties~ She went tQ the emerg~cy room bv.t 4octors could not determine the c·aiiSe. (Ex. 14 at i[t5 [Aff. of Rachel W'~n].) In Jtm.iot hjsh ~OQI Kimberly W@s weil iiked a:nd. got along with other studentS.. . . ·DUnn]; Ex. 9 at 'tf2 [Aff..ofTma.Nel®IJ].) (Ex~ 4 at ,2 [Aff.. ofGreyson However9 one night she experienced a traU:rtlatic event involVing a group of male . I cl8S$D18~S. lGmberly went t() ~ borne of c>ne of th~ boys ~4 something sexual happened. Rumors: circulated that Kimberly's parents ~ened to bring staU®ry rape ch_arges against at l~t one of the boys. (Ex-. 4 a,t tp [Aft ofGreyson DuM}.) Ulti_m!tely Kjmb~ly's p~gts refusec;l to. acknowledge that an assault had been coiiuiiitted against the1r daughter. (See Ex. 14.at 1[19 [Aft of]hchel. Wi,J.spp],) When i<.lmbetly was a teenager .she wanted to meet her biological father, E4die. Kim.beriy tr:a.vel¢4 to Mi.sSissippi a few times and was: able to ineet her father and m:embers of her paternal family. (Ex·. 13 at y,r5~6 [Aff. of ~borah Upton].) Due· to Kimberly's perSistent and ~ignificant lss·ues with .Rac~el; it Was detided Kimbetly should. go to Miss~ippi to stay with her biolqgic.al father for ~ 116 • • signifi.c:ant p~ocJ of ttm.t.'. E.dd:i~ and hjs ·wif~· Deborah filed for· legal gtlatdianshlp so Kimberly would be able to stay pennanen.tly. (/d. • ,8.) However, Kimberly did not have a good experience 'in Mississippi. I LhiengQod].) Kbnbetly wa.s not a,ble to m;~e the connection with Eddie she· so desperately wanted. (13X.. i 1 :at ,13 [Aff. of Lucy Sc:ow.,n].) K.ilnberlyreache4 ot¢ to Eddie but he dld not reach hack29 (Ex.. 14 at 11'8 [Aff. of Rach¢1 Wilson].) Ultimately, ~ly left :MiSsissippi much earlier than expect~. A~~' K.imbetly di'd.not have contact with Eddie or the other members of'het biologiCal family far a significant period Qf time. (Ex~ 13 ~ ~11 [Aff. ofDebqm.h U~]i. Ex. 11 at ~12-13 [Aff. ofLucy Scoggin]~) . KJ.~Jlerly co~d by l,(~iJ:lg b.~r. en:l9tions botUed ins~~- (13x. 8 at ,-s [Aff.. of Teena L:ivengC).()d].•) Th~ was a ch~ge ~ Ki¢.be.rly'$ p~!l$l.i~ dwing ber .. ···- $.e years. teetta ___ ,, Even . .. ... . her· . parents ....... did . . riot understand . .... .. .. .. . Wh. y, but " Kimber! - . - .Y .started ... . to b~ erno~o~~)' tm$.lbl~ ~d i~Q~. (E'.'.· 14 at ~21 [Af(; of~hel W1lson]-.) After grad,uatiQ;n ~ ):ljgh ~h'O.Ol, KJm~rl;r e:IVOll~ ~ ~ c()~iim~~~ col_l~ge ~ sl~t. in)t~ of g6ir:t$ to ~l~s:., Thi.s W&.$ p!U'(icu_l~y ~~~p1;.1:lbl~ tp t:ter ad9P~h:·e fati_t~r, @d Keiu:ietl;l.and Kimb,erly's relationship soured (/d. at -d~i-i-23.) 39 Kimberly h_ad a (ife~Io,tlg feat of aban~Qiir_t)eJit. H c~ed issues and insecurities 'in her future relationships. (See Ex. 2 at:,6 [Aff. ofBrian.Ca:rgill].) 104 117 • • "· J9.~;~.~.berly's Fint Divorce Takes a Sigliifieaat Toll oil lier Emo.tlonal ,JJ:~l·~ Aft~r-Ieaving community· co.ll.~g~; Kim})erly went to wOI\c in a l.aw o:ffiee and there she met bet firSt husband, Mike West. Milce~s father 'WQS tb~ o~ who fir$1: met.Kimberly and introd1,1ced d\em~. Kimberly'~ ~o~er fo~d Mlke to be-poiiShed and well educated. (Ex.. i4 at ft24-25 [Aft ofRachel Wilson].) MUte was good. J~t successful, and from a good family. Kim~dy tho'ugh~ if she !Y$Tied Mike she could p.rove tQ her mother tha.t s.be b~ val\1~ ~ 'persQn ·and ~ wort.}ly of being loved. (Ex. 5 at ,s [Aff.. ofMmy E9ft] ~) Kimberly and Milce· were .YOUilg ·and irn;map.p-e w4en tlley QW'li.ed 8Jl~ ~ey UIDled often. Their argumcmt$ became mutually physical and at tiines the polic:e were· fuvolyed. MUce OJ'l~e tllrew ~berly into ~ wall and left the hnprint of her bo.dy In the sheetrock. (14.. a,t 1f2:·) Kimberly and Mike tried to b~ve a b~ey SOC>.n. ·~~ tlt~ w~ ~ed b~ wete pia~ by fertility ~S$U~s, After· ~em Kh;nb~rly w~ ~le to get pregn~ ·wit!) her· firs~ 59P. ~d ~.d ~ ~$.tic.. Kimberly be.li~ved a baby would fix the problems in her marriage_, Kimberly focu~ h,~ enea,-gy Qll haying a h~tby baby ~d was in heaven whe,n Oav1d was born. Kimberly love4. (i~$ and h;a:vipg a newbon:l a:nd it s~~ to tbo~ ~urtd h~ t:rnJ..t ~robedy was fiila)ly where $he wanted to be "in l.ife. ~ 5 at 1[3 [M Qf Mary E.Qfl]:.) However. the birth of David did riot fix the· t:Ui'bulence in Mike ·and Kirnbedy'.s t;nan'iage. ~SS\J.~ ~een them rema,ined unresolved and the relationship did not get better.40 When David ~ about tbre¢. years old, K.it:n~ly bec.a.n)e very l.Il wi.tb Cl'()bn'·s Di_~41 an.d spe;n~ ti_r:ne it) th~ ,b~j~. Two w~ks 40 Ml"ke testifie~i at tri.al tha~ Kimberly was· qu.lc~ to ang~r and h.a4 a voJ~ti.Je · t~I:nF.· (See 59 RR at 7~1~) · 41 Ctohil's Disease Is a chronic i"rlflammatoty condition .of the gast:rQinte$tinaJ tra~. It c:auses a variety of symptoms that are often d.ebi}itat.ing lOS 118 • • ~er Kitnbedy was ~~~ fro~ the })osp1r,al Mil_ce left Kimbe~y and filed fot divorce. (Ex: 5 at~4 [AfT: ofMary EoffJ.) Milce ul.tnnauely ~OQ~ K,imbe.d_y ~ co~ over cust«i)r of Dayid ~.4 l?rougl:lt i_il ldriJ.~tly's own mother to teStify on his behalf at the temporary ~ody h~_ng. Ki!Xl~t:IY was prohib.ted from seeing DaVic;l ~ly and iilst.ead ~-held to-~ co~~rdered ~tody arrapgement. W>Smg c~.:¢.®Y. Qf ~Yi.d aff~ Kimberly treiiJ.e_ndously and threw her in a deep depression.. K.Unberly became so d,epress«i ~ she ~~ec_l~ed l,.~lf ip,tQ ~ ol,l;t"' p~ti~~ n:1~~ health prog1:8111. (14 at ,-5) Ki!ft~ly d:id ~t want the niarri:age to end and was overwhelm~ by w.~t WciS J:uqJp~~- wh~. (E~. 10 ~ '1f3 [Aff. of Debotal:l Newman].) Mj~~ lw4 mOI)ey ;m~ l~gal resom.ces at Ills di_sposal and IGmberly did not. Kimberly was at a s.en~ di:sa4van~age d\Ding the l~gal proce¢ir.I$-. f~.~. 6 -~~ ~ {AfT.; Q('Cin · and can 'interfere w.ith daily life. There i,s no <;:ure. for Crohn:'s Disease· and tre~mu~n~ ·ipvolves n:t~~II.l~n~:.of symptoms. (See http:/lwww.ccta.orgtwhat;.~ crohns-8Jld..eolltistwha.t..is~crohns~dlsease. last visited Au& 16, 20 I•() ·· 106 119 • ···t";,... • Kim~y :and Sonja h~.d ·ti p})y~c~l 4Jt.erc~t.iPJ) 120 • • Do1,1g Hemry];· E:~t. 9 ~t f7 [Ait:· of Tii.J..a Nel~n.];· Ex. 10 at f7 [AfL of Deborah Newm.an];: Ex. 11 ~ ,14 [AtJ: of Lucy SCoggin];· E~. 13 • '!J2 [J\ff of Deborah U~on]~) ~h of these 1ndiv1duals could have provided Tnslght. "Into Kimberly's ~·and ability t9 ~~ k:m.cl, com~siQ~, ~d l.oviftg to~ those· arolind her. These people wpuld also hav~ ~~.6~ ~· wl;iile ce$iilly not ~rfect, Kimberly did in. fact love Q~ chi_ldrer) and toQk gQOQ ~·ofth!=!D. As an adolescent, Kimberly was w.ell·l.i~~d.~ S~e ~~4 ~ $Weet verso~ity. She was nm to b:e· arotmd and g9t along Well With otb~ts~. ($ee ~. 4 at ,2 [Aff. ~f Greyson Dunn]; E~ 9 at fJ2 [AfT." of Ti.na Ne.lSQQJ.) A_s. a ;ra~g· ~t, Kiri:lberly was sweet and bubbly' and had a nwnber Qf mends tl)rC)ugb. h~ ne.igh~ood ~4 chu,rch. (See E~ 10 ~ 1fZ [Aff; of Deborah Newman]~· E'-'. ·5 • 'fl [A,ff. of~ Eoft].). All Kimber•y ever wanted was. a "n()l'D18llife;" a$~ wife~~. motb~ (Ex. 5 at 1[9 [Aft of Mary EQ.fl).) Kimberly l~ved b.eins a QlOtll~r 8r14 took goo.d care· of a young David. Kimberly loved David very mu~h. (Ex,. 10 a~ 14 (Aft of Deborah. Newman].) Kimberly w~ $W.e.¢t ~q a bit n_aive. (Ex. 6 • ,6 (Aft o_f Cmdy Henry].) Doug and Cindy Henry got to know Kimberly when tbey W01,1ld all .get w~tb~ with their kids. Kii;ril;>erly ~u.ently broUght Pavtd to tbe Ji~ house and th~ a.d~.Ilts tal~e4. wtrl.l~ tb.e kjqs pl~yecl. (Itt ~t ,5.) I 121 • • Thomas :becket, a mend ftequ:endy around. K.irnbetly from 1996 to 1998, also fotliid her wbe a '11orma.l and friendly'' pemn. \Vh.il.e 'Ill,on:,.~ saw Kjmberly upset sometimes due to the custo4Y sitUations She was dealing with, it was n·eve( out of the re_alm of a no~l level of intensity. (Ex. 3 at ,6. [Aff. of thomas Decker].) thomas alSO knew Klmberly to take good care ofher.·seco:nd so:r;1 I~~' ~d did not see atiy' ldnd of abuse or neglect Thom.as and Kimher~y spent a signi:tJC:ant amtn.mt ·of time together and he also saW.JGijtb¢dy parep.~ David. There were nUl'l)erous tjmes kinjberly took both Jamie. and David over tO. Thomas'·s hous~ tQ ~e ~4 $'?lim~~ him -~4 his f&Qlijy. (Id,. ~ ~4-S.) Evc;n ~Y y~ lat~, after ~berly had been through ;years of m~W strife an4 seemingly nevet..::endlng c'Ustody battles, She. coUld be warm and ()peri to others. A p~~t of on~·~fZ:tcJl's· cl~smates·li}{ed Klmberly very m:~~b.- $.h.e. ~w Ki01berly with both ~ach and LUlte o~p and Kimbe~:ly was not rough With them. 11) fact, KJID~rly WllS' ~ QPPQSi~ of~ugh, esp~c~y wjth L~~ wh~ rap. around on the fi~id du:riJ:lg Za~l)'$ ·spQrtiJ:lg events.. (~ 1.2. at fiZ-4 [Aft of Kiniberly Sl~ivinl.csy].) Z~h's cla5smate Stayed ovemightat Kimberly~s ·ho\lSe several times and Zach stayed ovem1ght at his friend''s· holise as w~iJ.. ~ wa8 not ever anyclliiig amiss and the classmate'.s parent found Kim.berly to be responsible and consci¢n.tj<;51.,1_s. (i4. at V-J.) There was, by all a~oup~, a ~ 4~~ of aggra:va:ti.ng eyfd~ce· presen~ed during the ~~tr:u~~ phase of trial:~· Th¢re Wete a ~igllifi~AA.t t:J,WDPer ~f people who expenenced a negative side of Kimberly and were Willing tO testify in that re~, a~·a~.se of tJt.a~ It wB:S evep. mote e5senti.'al that trial eounsel seek to provide a more complete and balanced picture ofKimberly. It is impossible to convey to ~ jl)ry ¢very ti)Qm,erit of a defend&J;lfs life.. The jeb ef the State in pfe$e·n~JJg a ~ iQ ~vatic>n i_s to fi.nd the most egregiqus events anc:f convil)ce a jllcy th~t tbose. ~venr:.s ·Me rep~sen.tativ~ of the defendant as a whole. It Is 109 122 • • tb~fore inCt,liDbenj \IP«l trial CQUJ.lS~l t9 ~un~ th.~ o.~e-:si4ed ~r:i~on and dem:onstrat~ to tb.ejury ~ lld.di.J)8. up d:t;e ~vatipg even!S Q.id nQt reach ~e sum total of Kimberly's wo!1]1 il$ t1 petS®-. To the contrary,, there were people Whas¢ liye.s she touched in a IIl~ip.gfW ~~ pos_iAve w.ay ~d ~e fact that the jury was not· priVy'· to those p~ople denied ~er the Q:t~fuJ as$t_al,:~e ofco~l.. ' D•. Trial Co.ttn~l Preseqted ~n. E_xpert' Who Testili~ Tha)t ~~rgli) Sg_ffered From Bonieriiiie P.enouiity DisOrder Witll:out badep:eodept· C(lrrobo_ra~on of E ..vironme~;~tal faetors J)r. All'oille(te McGan'ahan; ~ for~ic p_syc_hol_ogist, testi:6.ed dUring the. defe.nse ~~in-chief that she con41.lct~ a cl.~nic.al intervi~w of- C. .l and ac:Jmini~~red psyc_l}.ologi_~ ~ S.b.¢ tllso review~ a :(rull~tude of fluni,1y co~ do~e_nts, investigative· m.a~-~ls ~l~Wig ~P ~l.l 's ~-s~ ~4 ~ of Cargii1's psyetllatric and pSY'Cboiogieal hjst9ry.. (65. RR at 3~31.) Based o_n her clinical assessment, Dr. Me~ p~ffered ~tria} that Cargill s1lffets fro.m Borderline P~rso~ Dis()rder· e'BPD") an4 ~Pits person~it:)' tra,i~ ~l)Sj_~~ \Yidt bQth harcl_ssistic and ~ti-soci.~ p~oi)S]jty dlsortte·rs..42 (65 RR at 45.) Dr. Me~~ opjnec,t th,at. ~ a r:es~t of th~ BPD, Qargfll has signific8.rit t~~nal rel~#oD.sl}.ip di_(fi_culties; Sufferers of 1JPD have pervasive 4iffieillties: witJt b:ow ~ey t4~ abo~ tbH:lgs, percel.ve the- wor:Id, experience emotions, and 42 Dr. McQm.aha:n testified that thpse With na,ci~sistic beh~yior have. ~djose opin_ions ofth~lves ·and ree·l entitled. they can aeiit in a. demanding fashion and lack empathy for others. They can a.I:so exploit other'S for- perwnal pin. l)r; M~~~ off~d ~ Cargi_l_l h~ ·~sem.e ofthese· symptoms." (65 RR at 48-49.) Ad4itionaUy, or~ McG~an t¢stifie_d that an individual witl:l ~j~ social ~-ts b~ difficult following th~ r\.des $c;l wiU ~e in beh~vlor that. subjec:t 1;hem to ~t. Th~ is d~~i~ n.t~ipulatiop, lyi_ng," a,n.d imp~~ivicy~ (65 RR at 49.) Dr. McGartahan indicated that. in order to m:eet the criteria for BPU- soci_al perso.IJ~jty di~I'(l~r; a p~~QD .IP.I,l$t h~v~ e.~ibit~4 co!l(i~c~ c:ljsorder pro_biems prior to the:a:ge offifteen-;:and there was no indication in Catgill's.history that.she engaged~ tho~e kinds ofbel1aviots in c.hjl(fuoo.Q. (6_5 RR at 51-S~·.) 110 123 • • ~ Wit;h. otb~~ (65 RR ·~ 45:..46.) Dt~ McGarrahan further offered thai indiViduals With BPD ate emotionally unstable, unpredi;ctabl~ ~d f~l cbroni~ally empcy so. they·are "always trying to fill that emptintss with. relationships."" PeJSOnS with BPI> wlH fn'P.ltic.aO:y tcy to avoid abandonment and often .have vety intense· and volatile romantic fel'ationships~ They can al$o have chronic· anger· probl~ntS wb.ic;b. ~ ~ifes~ with aggressiveness and·violentbehaviot. (65 RR at 47-48.) When asked by defe~· co~l how a p~il deVelops tb~se types of person_alitY diS<>rders, or. McGartahan replied: MQSt ()f tile li~ and the research, partiCularly on bordei'lme pe.rscmalitY c;{isoi'd~t, ·suggests' t!?.ttt ~ le~ a ~j~J.jty of it is· enviro~ent.. An fudividUSl is n~ nec~sariJy born w1th tbe di~r~ and startS shOwing It at the age of one or tWo, but they ~y have .a vuJnerability gepetic~ly to develop some type of merit;al ifliless or p,sychi~r,rjc problem,. An4 w.ha~ that· tum:s Qtn ta be pro®bly dq,ends on· that person's en:Virol'itilent.. And the research tells us that with resp®t to borderline ~n~icy- di.sord~r, a ~jority of those 'fudhi®als Md erilot_ional.ly negie:c_tfUI ~egiver:s.. These are no~ caregivers Who left and left th¢m alone bt¢ e,moti~_ly cU.d ·:p.o~ sbare love, did' not express emotion, did not tell the individual they loved them, did .n.ot show affection toward them.~ :n~e ~h al~ su .. a.. lar . ggeSts. that . ge number . .... . of . d1agnosis did - ·- .. .. with.. that . indiVidualS have a Iii story of seX\lal abuse in childhood. · (65 M ~t':53-S4..) i:>r.. McGattahan testified that she did ~ot have independen~ knowle.dge that C3l"gill was sexually abUsed. (65 RRat 54.) On CI'Qss.,;e~~ioA, Pr:, MeG~~ te~ed that Wlder the DSM IV, p~a,lity 4i~9rd.~ wl#e ~haracteri'zed inld.er Axis· II, which proyi~ for me.nW diSorders rather than Itt¢.,~ iU.n~~$~S..• Dt. M~G~ap -~~-la).owl.edgecJ U:m~ personality disorders w~ :more difficu.lt to· .tre.a~ witb medjc~tjQq tban ment~ 124 • • illneS;S. 43 (6.5 RR ~ 57~59.) With regard to th~ info~tion Dr.. McGarral)_al}. had ·Q.t n_et di~, ~h~ ack~gwit;dged that she haS to take s:otile' backgrOUnd mfonrtation (su~J,l ~ &.~ f~ct $~t Cargill suff~ from ntimerous head injurieS or was sexually· abuse4 by a ~~rn-~ UIJqle) witb ~ "~ of s~.t" bec.~~e' h~ only basis of knpwledge was a ~~11 ~ Cargil• b.~~Jf abs~ indq,endent co-rrobqratibil. (65 RR -~ 88, 1_27 .) Tl)e S.~ prof.f~d tb.at ~wing up, Cargill had it "prettY gOOd ..• J:tom all accoW)ts.~~ In lieu ofa.$ir;lg Or. M:~ a qu~()n, tl_l~ State offered d.uting ~oss-examin$t;io~: B.ecause the testimony ofher mother w.as that ~-e W8$ very hrvolved ii) Q.e_r [C~g)U's] ljfe_. She had her college paid for, which mof itself is ~ pjetzy ~e~ ~-~ .Had ~U~ge ~d for, ap~en,t paid for, wa&.--- got just ~bou~ ~ytbfug sbe ~«.~ for II,Ul~~-wise-•..Her ~other was involved iii her [Catgiil's], all her activities groWing up.. Her original da;d left wh~ $e was about s~ :t;non~. I thinlc wen~ iiltc> the mi.U~, Her rnon, m;td biologi~al fa,ther divorced_. Mr. Pl#$ tai~ed her, and. they had. a very good relatio.Dship, actually ad:opted her.... Wba~ was it in h~ e;,ttly rel$~()_nsbjp tit.• w~ not good? (65 RR at 127~28~) H~d Dr~ MeG~ ~ provided wjUl Ut~ infQUn~tj()Il from iay WittteS;s_es, &he would haye b«n more appropriately able to expbiin an:d con~~li~ the ~vjfotw1et:lW ~~ors present in Cargill's life tl)~t m~y have c_ontributed to h.er einQtional and psycbolQ"gi¢al d_eyelopm_et:~t. 125 • • S.p·eeificalXy, as describ.e:d ·~ov~, l~y w.it;a~· provide
Cargill ~ subje~d tQ physical vioience ~t Ule hiiDd of h~ ~ot;h.er and ~~ttered from menin~tis in childhood, a seri()us' and p.otentially debilitating disorder. E~erb~_Q$ h~ ~l!e~ ex:~ low ~elf.;.worth and feeling. a5 though she did not b~ong ~thin h.~ :fip:nijy structure, cargill ~~pted to e9nnect to her biological father and establish a meaningful relationship with him. The r¢1ationship did not · ·develop as expected am;l Ca®ll w~s oiJ,ce -again left diS8ppofuted and estranged. Cargill entered into marriage as a yQurig adUlt With the expecta:tjon tb- sbe woUlel fb)aily ~eive her mother's approvaL the mariiag~ was not SUStainable and the tUniultUo.US, oontentio~ and a¢riinoidotis divorce and subsequent loss of c\islody of her first son sent Catgiil into a deep depresSion and further UJ1d~ed.h.- .s~ o;fse¢Q)i.ty il)lJ.:i$~lf•worth.. Dliring trial counsel's clOSing argument they offered~· "We don't-we don't know wb~t jt ~ We d9n't lcn:ow wh.at did it We don't know what caUSed it, .bUt we know something did. When. Ms .. Cargill was born, when she came into this wotld, on this- earth sbe w~ an i®ocent baby. SO:Il.l~g ha_pp·ened, ~c;! we don't know what.;' (69 RR at 17.) However, there wete people. available and Willing to proVide that ttijssing mf~tiO.n thiJ~ wo~d have en~ble9 Dr. McGarrahan to pro.vide the jury with specific traumatic environ:mental factors that may have co,-ttril>uted to Cargill's development Not doing so ilildenn1ned the presentation of the defense ~s oWn expert and undennined the ctedibfHty of the defense case a$ a whole. 126 • • :E. Trial Cotiiisei's Faflu·re Prejadic·ect Cargill Tria) cotm.sel's 4~fi~ien~ con~ct prejudiced Ca:rgili's right tc;l a full presentation of miti'gation evidenee -at the p.u.niShnlent phase of ber· tr.i~~ Se~ W"z!1(4.ms., 529 U.S. at 393 ("[l]t is undisputed that Willianis had a right~indeed, $ constitutionally protected right-to provide the jurr with ti.l~ m1ti~ evidence that his trial ooutlsel either tailed to discover or failed to offer."].). Counsel's per:fortn8Aee is therefore defic_ien~ Wiggins, .539 u.s-. at 527 ("Even assuming [cotinsell iimited the seope of their ·mve·stigation far smrtegic reas911$, Stri~/44.r.zd d9es not ~~H.Sh th~ -~ eursocy Investigation au:toiriatlc~ly justifies a taCtical deciSion with respect to sentencmg straWgy. Rather a revie~ cow-t must cri~ide~ the. ~nableness of the ·inveStigation said tO support.that strategyf').. The State ~- that there is· nothing aho\J~ Q. persowmty disorder that is mitigating-. (.69 AA a:t 4647, 95.-9.6.) 1-lowev~, trial counsel's defi.cjent p¢o~ce prejudi~ the punlshment phase· of Carg1lf's trlai because the jUry' was denied the opp:ortunity to consid~ ~e full st.Ql)' of c;~ 's c9mplicated familial, emotional, and 5ocial history. Regardless of whether the j\uy believed the tra~ suffered by Car~ll eith~t ~y or 4ldirectly resulted in her· deytHopment of BPO, the underlying traiima .its:elf is still mitigating. Th~ type of'infonnati(m trial ~~ co!ll4 ))ave i;m¢overed $bout Cargllf's difficult life. is the km:d of informati:o~ co~ n~ve ruled ~s r~lev~t to assessipg a defeilda,i:lt's il)o~l culpability. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 535. Some aspect of that stocy·; sqro~·seeq_~i_ngly minute detail, could have· been· the one fact that caused a single juror to d¢ci.d:e tha~ Cargil.l'$life shoul 127 • • CLADI'EIGHT TIUAL COUNSEL WERE INm:FQCTIVJ; FO~ FAILl.NG TO .U_lJUT TilE sTAtE'S CASE IN ACcRAVATION DURING THE PUNISHMENT PIJASE OF TRIAL Duripg ~~ p~j~~~ p~~ of (Ii_al, t}:le ~ta~ p~ented nwnerous witn~.s 19 tl;S~ tQ ~ggrav•~~g ~d~ce reg~.i.ng c~IU's behaviQr prio_r t9 arrest;~ Among the evid«m.ce ~.seiJ.~ were de~l.I~ of Cargill's divorce· and custody battl~:wirb Mike W~~ an all_ege4 ~s•w~ ~~m.,t ~~'~ wiJe Sc:$j~ West, and the Injury .to a Child ~· filed ~~.g&inst Cargill in: March 2010 pe~il)g to ~ mjl.ll'Y to ~b· Ro.bmsol.l'S fo~h~~ ~~ the a~yatll)~ na~ of tb.1.S testit:nony, trial co~l proVided li#:J;e-~o-n:o evid~c:e t,o re~ agdlor ~~~b the St,a~'s witnE'.SS~. PoSt-conviction lnyestjga_tl_Oi,l has ~v~.ed s¢v~ wi~~~ and other·eVi4~ce ~ CC)uld have beer,l ~ to c:hallenge the S~' s· '-cc:.QWl~ ·oft:b~ instal)ce8, a11 of whj¢.h was ~ly •vailabl~ tQ colinSel ~ th¢ t4J:).e Qf irial:.. l)j~ CQ\l.l:l~P~ fsJl'QN tQ ~~p~ to c~ ~m Qn the s~~'s ~~ve wl~ a:v~l_abie ¢videnc:e ~~t~s· 'i;ne_t;fec;Uve ~$istan_ce, pre,hldi~ng (;a,rgiWs righ~ UJ:lQ~ the state .and fedetal Constitutions, state statUtory law,. and united States Supreme CQUJ't and $fa~:case l~w. As· such, Cargill's sen~ sbou14 be rev.efSe4·. A. f~l Cou.ns~l Uas· a Dl,tty to Rebut the. Prosecution 's· Ca~ in Favor of ~~e ~~-- rell.3l~ An i~f{ectjve $.S'si$rtce of co~~~ claim r~u_i,~ ,a sqoWi)::lg ~ trl~l coun~l's perfonnance was deficieil~ aild th.at the deficiency prejudiced Cargill. StriCkland, 466 u.S. ~J 687; j;;,_en~, 3.64 S.W.3~ a~ 883·. CargiJlmust show that her counsel's representation fell below a:n obje:ctive standard of ~QnabJene~ i.n order to est.abHSh defici~ncy. Striclcltind~ .466 U.S .. at 688. The reasoll'ableiles:s of · counsel's ·perfonilance i:s measw-ed by th~ p~va:ilmg prQ(e_$$i~~l ~:tol111J· • tf:Ie tim~ of t,ti_~ ~ ~O.~ed in the A.meocan Bar As~a.ci~tion ~danis and the like. ns· -128 • • Jd To ~:t;a})lish pre~ce, C~U I;ll.~_t $Qw. ~ "r~_asonable ~robability that, but fot c~l'~- ®.Prof~siol)al etrors, the result of the proceeding woUld bave be·en d.i_fJ"eret1t." Id at 694; Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at ~12 .. Trial counsel b.a$ a du_ty to investi~~~ ~~rtd present. evidence at the pU:b.lsh(nertt pha:se of~. See ABA Guidelines, Guid.elines 10.7-10.:8._ Not only s.hould coun.se_l -~atjv~Jy presen~ mitigating evidence during the pwishmen:t p~e, but they ~ust also rebut the- aggravating evl_dence ptesertte4 by tb~ .S~.• $ee Porlf!l' v. McCollW1!, -558 U.S-. 30, 4l-42 (2009); ABA Guideline$, Guideli:Iie 1:.:1 C~:• eA.t (th;e pul)i$hlilent] pha,s¢, c,tefelj~ CO\U)SeJ mu_St bOth rebut the prosecution's case in favor of the death penalty and aftirn:latively p~.ent the best po.~ible c~ Ut !Q:vot Qf ~ sefi.Wpce. other ~ death.n); see al3o GUideline IO.li(A) (stating that co\iilsel has a eontin:Uiilg dUtY tO investigate .information that rebuts the $~e's $I:lticipated case-In aggravation); Guideline 10.i1(F)(2) (stating that, in d'etetm.iiifug, whi¢h Witnesses a:pd eVidence to presen~ 3t pur,t.J,$QCJ:1~ counsel shoUld cOnsider lay Witnesses With the ability to rebut or e~lafu the evidence presei,lte4 by the State). nus duty Is also rec:o~PUzed by the GUidelines and Standards for Texas Capital C.o~l and the- S~pplemen~ G1,1i_d~l.in~ ~ Standards for the Mitigation Function of Defeme te:ams in Tex&.$ ·D¢ath Penalty cases. B. 'l'nal Couasel Fa_il.ed to Rebut th'e .Agg~v~ting Testi,~o~:r of Seve~.l State Witnesses During t_he Pa_nisbD.l_e_~t Pb_~_se ofTri~l At the punishm_e:nt phas:e of' trial, the S.tate presented nwn_eroqs wi.~sses tQ ~stify to ~ a~ a1legediy coJlliiijtte4 by Cargi)J priot to her arrest. While tJ."ial COtm_se_} c;f1d imp~_C}l ~dfor reb"!.}t SOJjl~ of tQese WitnesSeS through cross;. ~~aroi.~.Q~ ~.d ~bl1~ witn~s, tnal!Y of ~~ bad acts went wholly tmcb.allepg~.. A_s a result, over $,e c~ of i~ ~n_isfml.~nt phase presentatlen, 129 • • the S~~ ~ -~})1~ ~Q present unchaitenged teStimony eStabliShing Cargill as a 4.i.tlicult, eysfuncno~ and v1olent person~ 1· 'l'ri~l Coauel Faiied to Rebut Mike W~'s Acoouot qf ftae C..-dy Battle Reladu;g to Th:eir Son, Da,id · A~ p~ent, the; State called each. of the· fathers of Cargill's ~bil~ i.D. chronological order.. It began With Mike· West, CargiU'.s first hu$band ~d ~4' (a~er of her titst child, i:>av1d. Oil direct exa.mfuation, :Mike# disc:u:ssed th.e custOdy battle t;hat ensw:cl betw.e~ hin;1 ~d Cargilt pertah)ing t9 thei_r so.n.. M~ explained that tiprin filing for divorce from C.argill, the ~an~ vi.Sit.atlon sch.e:4"QJe· w.~ h.nple~en~; that r~ Cargill main:taiiJ.ed custody and Mike was given viSi~on every other·w~ken4. (59 AA ~ 92.) Howeyer, by the tfme the· divot~ w~ fi:naiized, the tables had turned. Mike waS granted custOdy -and Cargill WSS' reduced to visitationS every other week¢~ (14 at. 92-93.) Mike, teStified that he later sought an order to Iimit Cargi'J.l to .supervis.ed. visitations because h~ w.~ co~~t.ec;l by· CPS alj.4 informed that he m\lSt do_ 8omethirig abou,t Cargill or el~ CPS woUld remove David· from M~·s ~-~ (!4. at 95-.) No eviae.nce ofth~ co:rivet:sation was presented~. Mike then claimed that bEiSed on that ·conv~.io1.1 'with CPS b¢ Q.eeiclec,t to ~.rea. lawyer and attempt to limit Cargill's visitation rights even further. (/d. at 97-98.) Later in his~ testimol)y, Mjl{~ r~~t~ his sllspicjons that Ca.rglil was ab'Using DaVid before t~fyiilg th• he ~ -~~ sole c~s~dy of Dav.id in 1993, when David was on~y three _years..old.. (Jd. at 108- 11.) He went on to poipt out ~t Sl,l,ch rulings were 1Very rare· at the time," suggesting that Cargill's tre:atmelit of Mike and Oavid w.a:s ~spe:ci.Ql.ly eJ¥e~o:us. (See. id. at Ill.) 44 With the exception. ofApplicant, rust names wil~ be used for the ease of the reader thrQugb.out this· CJ.ai.m. 117 "-------...,......·-· .... -.. ' -·- . . 130 ---~=-=---- • • On cro~xmrunatton·, trial co\ms_ei fa_il~ to adequately cievelop ~ m~re: balanced history of tl)e· cu,s.tod:y .iss.ue for ~e j~.~ ln. f~ct, ~unsel did not address the "issue a:t all l)ther tl:um to,poin~ o~t that the proc¢edings were coiltentio'il$~ (59 RR alll3~) Tri~ co~.sel o~e,lool<.~ th.e oppo$Qfu' to contex~ai~· the custody proceedings regatding Davi~ in order t() demonstrate that n wa.s a ~~n9· e~erie.nc~ .for ~(I t9 lose custedy of her first born, a. ~hrt q1Jit~ ~l_ev~t t9 mitigation.· Pcst-c.onvic:tion inyestigatjcm has uncove.red fo~ wi~~ wh9 would have b~ available and Willing to testify at C.at~ll '.s trial regarding bow ~~~ic: the divorce ~~nd CU$t®.y prQC~~ w~ for ~U aQ.d Ute ~igt)~:fJcant ~mpact it had on her. ~-· l)ebq"'J;J N:llV~~c~n In addition to being a. vital Witness fot the development ofCargill's· s«ial histOIY,45 Deb"Qrah New.tnan 'fQl).ld WlYC $.ed. ijgli~. on :M:ike~s account of the divorce and cUstody proceed.iilgs_ Deborah was a friend of Cargill in the early 1990s when they both lived in Ailen,. Teias. (Ex. iO at ~1 [Aff. of Deborah Newman].) Sh~· was not con~cted by C$.1'gill's tri~ tea,m., b1,1t would I;J.ave been willing tO testifY on Catgill's= behalf. (ld at ~7~) ·Cargill.and Ml"ke were ·still marrie.d. when J)e~ roet ~~~. C~ll,- Mike, an~ Deborah ail auertd~ th~ First Baptist Church in All~ an·d Cargill and Mike ~~ght Su:n4.ay S·c.bOQl l;o Deborah's ~ghter. Cargill ·was "very sweet and bubbly" when Deborah Wa$ arol)ild l:ler-. (ld" ~ ~2-.) Deborah reealis when Mike filed fot·divoree .. Carsill did not want the m~ag~ to ~d ~d $e~m,ed overwhe~~ b.Y the whQle ordeal. It seemed to DebQrah tbat Mike was '-'mu~h m~'er abou:t it than }:1~ J:l~_ed to be." (Id. ~t 13.) Mik~ b~d tbe su.pport of b)s fiml,i_iy so he·~ able tp )lj_re expensive a,ttomeys .. The p_ower balance was in Mike's favor, and he use:d that to Cargill'$ 4 ·' See Claim Seven, ante. 118 ·- 131 • • «;ietr;iJ:Q..ent. (14..) MMch to tl)e CQ:t;l~; Car~Pll did not have sljppo,rt fro.ljl het oWil f'amjly and s_he felt a~d~l.1~4 by lt:crr·m.~tbc~r4.ming tbe cl.ivo~~ (J.d. ~t 14.) ~.U w&s· ~devastated emotionally" when Mike began p~g custOdy of David and trying to limi~ Cm:gll.l'~ visi~~on l'igh~. (Ex. 10 at 14 [At'f. ofOeootah Newman].) Dehorah believed that C.argillloved O~vi4. very :Q;J.~c.tl and took good ¢~ c)fhim. (!t/.) AtJ the pr~eedmgs c_arried on, C.atgill began to <:fill Deborah late at night tO talk.. Cargill sounded distraught and did n.ot know how to ~le the·prospect.oflOS:ing.her son. (/d a~ ~S.) Deborah encouraged Cargill Jo p~y, b~ ec;,uld·:r,ot dp mu,ch else·for h~. (ld.) Deborah's rec:ollection of the divorce and ~- proc_e~g$ provi~~ 81) alt.erD!J.tive a¢cO~t to the one Mlk.e testified to at tri,al. Rather than C.~ll ~iDg pOrtrayed .as an especially violent and unp~di~ble rno~· who g~ wb... -~~ deserved, Deborah could. have eXplained that the result of those pro.c~gs ID4Y act:ually have been the influeQ.®.CJ. by Mik~'·s ~COJ1o.mi~ $Dd p$Ycb:ologica1 powe~;.-lp. the coUrtroom. The emotional toll tha~ those eYellts too~ on Cargij_l w.o\l_ld a.Js.o be relev~t ~o the jwy's punishment deiiberations~ N~~ only did Cargi_ll ·lose b~ fi.,m. hom, but .she wa:s abandoned by her· f~ily in th~- pl'()®S$.• Deborah's co.nfin:n.~ 132 • •• i~ tQ tl,te bo9Se n¢Xt door to her- In Allen, Texas. (Id..at 12.) Carg)U and Mike wete jl;lst newlyW:«l$ ~t tb~ ~e b\lt w~re imm.~ and a,rgu~ ·a l~t.. (/d.) M"~ eventually left Cargill a:nd. filed for divorce sh~_rtly aft~ she w..s d.i:~.~ ~ an extended I;J.ospiW, s~y. (ld ~ 'lf4.) Mike antics in the couttrooil,l as wen 8$ Catgill's.c:~epres·sive response to ldsing custody of David also counter· the star)' as i~ W;iS ~¢n.te4 by the Sta~ at trial~ (See id at ~:S.) · In a.ddi:tion to providing context for Cqi,Ws con:wll¢4~ soCial hiStory t Mary's testlniony could have shown that Cargill was not the SQle aggres5Qr in her reJ.atjon,shj.p witb M.ik~ ~d Ulere were tnany·tactors other than Cargill's linritatioil$ as a Sjl()use and parent that ultimately had an effe~ on the cust®y si~on witb, ~vid.. c. Ciildy Henry C4ldy Hel)l"y, too; coUld have served the d.Ual.·j>Urpose-role of mitigation and. re.bUttal witness~ Cindy j$ mmjed to Doug Henry, who W3$ formerly married to Sonja West. (Ex. 6 at ~~ [Aff. of Cindy Hency].) Cindy got to know Cargill aroW:ld ~ time of C~(l's div~e ~m M1~ ~ ensUing ~dy battl~. (fd) Cindy was- not contacted by anyone on Catgill 's tri.aJ ~ bUt woul.d have I te:$tifi~d on C~ill's beh.al.f. (/d. at.~.) Cargill was go1J?-g through her cUstOdy battle With Mike ~tmd tbe ~e tim~ th:a' D9'Ug w~ $Ping through his with Sopja. (l.d·· at ,5~) As a result, CiJ:ldy·g9t ~ be G;e:l}_ds wi~ CargjU.. {14. ~ ftl, 5.) C~gili frequently brought David over to Cindy and Dol!g's ho~ to. play. (ld. ·at 'dS) ChtP,y ¢.oP.Si4ere4 Carglil to be "Very sweet arid a bit naive." (/d. at 'JJ6.) By Cindy's acco.unt, "Mik~ really beat up [Cargill] emotio~ly." (lit.) S.l;le ~U.eve$ tha,t Ca.tgili 'Was uhprepared to de:al With dlvotce proceedings. b.ec·ause Mike :filed for· divorce and full cl,l.St(>dy of David around the time when C~.ll was in the hospital. Mlke had money so he could hire good attoz:tteys.. Cargi)l, on the other ha.nd; Wa$ on })er·ow.n.• (fd..) 120 133 • • Cindy could have· further confinne.d the teStimony of Deborah -an4. ~ regarding Milt~ be~g· • d.iffiCl,ll~ spo~e 1l~Pcl ~~g, ~4~~~ of his power to -~ CU$~y QfD~vi4. TrW co~l's failute to call h~r as a witness :collStit\ites d~ficj.~~ ~Q~ce• .d. Do.ug Henry Fi.nally, Doug Henry also could ~ve c.Qnfirme4 this all~_ative· acco~ of the divorce and.custody_ptaceedjngs. Doug·was a friend ofCargillwhen th.ey were both soi.n.g thrc;)l-Jgh c~tpqy ~~es Witb thetr ex@~ (E~. 7 at ~1 {Aff. of Doug Henry].) Doug's ex.;.wife Sorija Henry-W~ is llQW married tQ :Mil 134· - • • the t~stiinoriy · of DebOrah Newman, Mary Eoff, Cindy Henry, and Doug Henry con.stitt,~ted defici• perforuwl_c;;e ~4. prejpdiced Cargil) 's co~tiwti<>n~ rights. 2. Sonja West Incident On t.nuJti.ple occa:Sions over the course of the purijsbment ph~, the S~ elici~~ ~sti~9r)y regardlrig an altercation betWee)l Cargill a:nd Sonja West. M"lke West ~vi4 West, Sonja W~ ~4. Le_igh Aoo fleJ:tey al.l t~~#fi~ ~o soJl.le exte[)t tegardi_ng th~ incident.. Despite the fa~t that the State repe$tedly :te~"CC;l t~ the incident, trial cOu"nsel never attt;mpted to rebut or cantex.tUal.ize what really happmed. SonJa testified that she, Da:vid, Leigh Ann, and a nan:ny were a:t So~Ja' s house in Rockwall; Te~ O!l tl_l~ Leigh Ann by the arm and began to walk her up the stajf:s_. (let at ~-7.~38.) SOI)j~ then ~hed ol,it anc;i ~bbed Lei~ AM's other~ in order to g~t CargUi to let go of her. (/d. at .39.) In· resp:ons¢, Cargill let. go of Leigh Atm.'s arm and ptoc~ to kick Sonja in--the stomach and thtc>w Sonja's hand against a bride waH. (ld., ~t 40.) Leigh AM hid behind Sonja thtoughou~ the ~~~01). (14.; at 4.1..) David; oil the other hand, began to .run aw-ay. (/d) CargiH chased. David, 135 • • caught hiM, and carried 'h.im back to h_er caz:. (1.4) A~ 8Qme p9jlrt qW:ing tl_le jn~i4en.t t:h~ g~y .c~leQ. tf;I~ pqUce· ~~ Camili was later apprehended. (Id at 42.) Mile.~ W~ te:sP.tiec;t ~ 1-!e was ~ot p~t during the incident but sa.w · SQpj~:'s injuti~ ~fterward·; (59 RR at 101•.02.) He ob~I'Ved , lm.lise$ ~il S JAj~ Aru.l teS9ti.ed. th~· 5P~ rec~le4 CargiU wm.il:tg t9 1;he {ron~ door at Son.j~'·~ b.9'Q~ !Q pj~~ 1:1~ ~~ (~0 R,R ~t 51.-) Leigh J\m.l w~ ~g her mother- goodbye· wh~ Cargi.l.l c3111e over··an:d toJ:d her i~ w~ t~ipg too l01.1g WJd pbbec;l . her by the atrh. (Jd) As :Cargill was ttying to walk away with Leigh~ Sonja grabbed onto. Leigh Arul;s. other arm. (Id. at 51-5.2.) Leigh Aili:l testified that C~Il ~~r:t k.i¢l.ced $opj~ i)l t~e $:tom.~~h iJ:t order· t9 .g~ h~ tp ~et .go.. (14 ~~ 52:.) Davi4 ran off~ ~-~~.sb C.argi.IJ ~ t9 c};Iase hjm a(ui ey~nw,ally take him b~~~ to the car. (ld} The whole incident took roughly ten minutes, ~ccotding to Leigh Ani;. (Ill. ~ 54) Appro.idm~~~ly six wee.ks before t,ri~_l, cm.il)Sel 'W$.8 given n9tice that the S.tate . i.~.tep¢~ to ~·the Sonja i.ncid~m as ~g_wav~ting evide~ce d\~Ppg tl:te pUQi.$h~l't~r,t phase; (See 3 CR at 511.} De"spite the fact that the State included the incident on l23 136 • 1ts Match 21, 2012 "Second No.tice of .Intent to Offer Evidence under· Articl~ 404(b )/' ~Wl$-el faU~4 to 4tv~stigate: and present .eviclence ~o .t¢tru~ ~O.r' eonuooualize th~ alter~on. Po:st-c.onViction investigation has uncpv~d ~ · Witn~s.s¢·s who oowd.have testified to the complex telanQiiship ~eeil C_atgill ~d Sonja and ad4ed context tQ a ·story tha:t; •·tri~J.l, W3$ told by two ~~~ wbQ w~~ children at the tiille oftbe incident, one persQn who was not pres~ ~ rh.~ time of the iAciden~ an4 Sonj~ .~~rself who held a clear bias against C.arglil. a. Dotig. Heney . As ~pla,41e4 a.bov.:e, Doug Henry h~ S·Onj'tfs ~-~-l;\11spand. (Exo 7 at 4f[i [Aff. o~ Doug Henry].) Dolig was rila:rried to Sonja fot approxith'ately ten yean. ·(Jd at. tf13 ..s.;) After the1r· divorce, Sonja did a lot of thin:gs to .make Do.ug's life ~mi~le.•" (14. ~ lt[4.) Do"&Jg and Ci,r,td:Y w~ted Leigh Ann to be· In th~lr wedding but. Sonja. was adamant. that she not ~ involved~ (ld at 'JS.) In fact, Sonj~. ®led CPS and reported tbat Doug was se~y abusing Leigh .Artil. (ltl) As a result, Dou.g a:nd Cindy had to spend. extensive amounts. of till).e t;md mo)ley fighting the allegation. (/d at,~S-'-6.) In total, Doug spentabout.$77,000 fighting for cu.~ody ofL~igh Ann:. (/4 ~~ ~6.) In tQ~: ~n~ Do~g and Sc;n~ja end~ up with a standard eust~ a.rrangemeht.. Sorij'a continued to mak.~ thilltgs difficqlt for DQ~ regarding Leigh Ann even a6er·the case·was·ovet. (Jd) Oo~g's po~~iaJ t~.~iroonr co~4 ~ve reve~ed that Sonja had a history of belhg manipulative and unnecessariiy d1fficult when it ·c.am:e ~o cu:$>dy i.S:S~~ Stich 'testimony eould have provided. context the jilrors and given them reason to s~.Pect ~e oo.rnplet~ ·accuracy of S~nja's a~unt of the ~ncider~,t_. Tri.at coo$el's failure·t9 in~~rview Do~~ a.nd ~11 him to testjfy t,o th.i.s·~.d v.ariou~ oth._e_r~ects-of Cargill'~s social history constituted.fueffective assistance. ... 137 • b. Cl_-.d.y H •.ry C1_n4y igl,ew SQnja as ·a resUlt of Doug's divorce and c\i~ b.aUie Wjth, h~.. (14 ·a.t ,L) c"indy cauld have testified about her experience with the divoree and c~ody ~~~ be~~ DQ~g and Sonja and h~ <:Jpinion r~s~g Sonj~Cs c~~· Sl:ich. testimony is relevant to Sonja'.s manipulative romtre, impeaches her ~:bi_lity, Md. p:royig~s re_levan.t ev'd~ce ~ subst:an~~~ Cargi(f's social .histoJ')'. SQrtja b~ ~~ thm~ dlffi.cu_l~ fQr Ci_g.dy an¢ Doug ~~e S~ja an4 Doug's divo,r<:e. (Ex. 6 at 13 [Aft of Cirn.iy Henry).) )u!l,t a few ~s· bef~· Cln4y ~4 Doug-'s oWn wedding, they had a big- tight with Sonja.. (/d) Cindy and Doug wanted Leigh~ Doug's ~gh~er-; to be il) the wedding but Sonja objected. SltQttly thereafle.r, -Gr$ opened an Investigation against DO:Ug for aUegedly mol~ung Le_igb. ·Atm.• So~j~ ~c~~ Doug 9f dail)g some~g- mal)proprlate: ·when he ~as bQ~ing ~-i~ Ann ox:t hjs ~~. Cfuc;ly d,~ctib~s· ~e ~eg~ons-~ '~a~e ~d outrilgeo~."' (Jd.) T'h.i.s led to a contentiolis custody battle·that lasted a lang. time and cost the Henry's ~ns ofthousa,nds QfdoJ.l~. (ld) Following the moleStation -allegation, Cln:dy and Doug were not allowed w have ~pet\'i~ -vlsi.~'on With Leigh AJ:in. (lS_x. 6 at f-4 [Aft: of Cindy Henry].) They were requlred to go through a series Qf" p~chologicai testS, an4 ~1¢t A$ had to go to play therapy. S.oriJa te;mai:ned difficult th:rou$ho.u~ the prQC-., If Doug an.d Ci_nciy wem. ey~l) ~ ·s.~r:t t_iffi~ ov~_t· th~i't· a.Jlo~t_ed t4.ne wi¢. Lei~ .Arnl. SQI:tJa wo\lld ~·'throw =iL ft~ -~bout i~ SJ:lQ -~~t ij:l~ l~wy~s mv9lved." (1.¢) Based on SonJa's bdlavior thrQughout thls pracess, Ciridy believed she ~ '~unbalanced." (/d) Cindy recalls when Sonja acc·Used Cargill ofassaulting bet. (/d at ~8.) This was a very dlffictilt g_J;ile· for -C~gi.l1 be~ause s,he wouJ4 not- be ~:Q~e to be ·$. n.~e with art. ~~ul~ convi~~icn:t OJ) h¢1' record. (Jet) "it seemed like Kimberly gave up after-that-both emotionally and spiriwailY.~" (/d) 125 138 •• • Cb;td.y l.s -~_other ~xaJ11ple. o_f a witness who coUld have .teStified to the m.~_ipul~ive l)~~ure of Sonj~, 1~ the.j-ury to qilestion Sonja's ctedlbilicy. lrt addition, such testilnooy would have more fully elq)~ed th~ @)nWxt .of the alleged assault. c. Ra~.h~l Wl,lS(tg ~chel Wilsop,, C.ars(U's ~other-, ~stj.fi_ed on b~h~f of tbe S~e at the pliliisbment phase. She testified to a variety of aggrav~ting iss\}~ bu~ ~ev~ commented ori the Sonja. incident ot the dyna:mlcs ofSonja's ~.lati_oD.$bJp wi:tb ·tb~ fiiinily. FolloWing the St.$1~'$ ~t ~on, tri~l cQunsel d~Uned t9 cros:s- ex·amine Rachel; instead, opting to call her d~ the def.~ ~· (58 RR, at 210.) However, trial counsel never tecail(d R.a.chel 8$1 her ~st_hnc;>'l;ly was left. entirely unexamined by the defen~.. If counsel bad. re~led ~h~l for Qte defense case, she. coUld have testified to the nw:nerous aspects of' C~_ll'~ so.cial b.jstory4o6 -~ well as tbe followipg. RaChel remembers Mike's divorc_e from Cargill ~d. Mil.<,e'!i $U~uen~ ma:rriage·ta Sonja. B_as~.d on Rachel's expetien~e5 With So.~j~ ~h¢1 folll)d ~to be a "trouble--maker:" (E~~ 14 • 125 [Aft:. of R.achel Wii$9I1]•) S~J~. was ~~~ ~ David and emotionally ah:us«i him. (Id.) Rachel, too, d,es_cribed Sorij~ as· m.~ppl_~ve~ (Id.) Wbjle ~l:t~l's t~tiJ:nonY re~g Sonja is relatively li:mited, it tends to be- c:onSiStent With what otherS could have said aboUt S'ortja--namely that :she co:u,ld be cruel and manipUlative and had an interest. in getting both her and Mike•s exes out oftbeir ljves, Mo~v~, ifcou~l bJid recalled Rachel-, they could ~e el{~j~ -an abWidance of niitigating evid~nce from her· in ad(lition to the t~imony ~boQt .. 139 • • SonJa. 47 ·Considering RaChel's potential t~mony along w.fth tbat of Cin.dy an4. Doug, tb~jucy wol,l!d ~ve be~ provided whh a rn.u~h more ~WU1~ed p.q~yal of the alleged assault. Instead, jurors were left ·with ~ ab~o~ wholly ~J:W.l~p.ge<{ a¢cotm.~ of an ~s~ult by Cargill against Sonja. Triai cotlilSel's faih:Ue to challenge the mcidence cOnstituted d.eficient perl'OIJl:l~~ and prejudiced Cargi)l's ooilstitiltional rights. 3~ Injury to a CJa.(ld Ch•Jle PerQJ.ju_ing to .ZS~h Robinsoa OVer the- cdme of the ptmlsbment phase of trial, ihe State called. three wjtp.ess~· to testify abou,t the injury to ~b Rob~on' s f6reh~ that led to the I,:tjury to a Child charge beln.g flied agafuSt C.a:rgill in Marc.h 2010. It was~ IQ.jury to a Child charge,that later led to LUke Gamet being temo.ved from. Cargill's care' promnn" t" ......g the· .. CPS case to whlch . ... Waiker .. . . . was " subpoe · naed to testify .• Accord!ng to Zach's testimony, the brUise to his forehead O.CCO.rred one morning before school when Carsfll was- ~mptjftg ~ pm. cQD.~ lens solution in ZS.ch'~ eye. (61 RR. at ll4.) .Zach blinked and flinched as Cargill wa:s· trying w $pply the $oh.rtiQJi, wliich ~ Car@.~ Zach testified that. Cargill then to.ok the aerosol can that the· solu~cm was cOntained in a,nd hit. Ucb. in tb.e forebe~ witb •t. Z4ch stated that she hit Jilin With the bOttom e:dge ofthe.ean.. (14) Zach then identifi~ some pllptos ofthe ~jl¥.)' to his forehead. (Jd. at llS.) On redirectt the S.tate asked Zac;b ~f be h.~~ ever· hean;l Ccumll teU pe~l~ t,h,at the fofel:tead ~j\lry was:the result ofhitting his head on.a basketball goaL (62 RR at22.) Zach stated that he ~d n~t .heard that before, but that such a.statement would be a lie. (/d.) Th.e S.~~~~ also c;alle~ Z~~h's fa~er, Matt Robinson, to testify to the injury. Matt t_estili~ tbat he pi:Cked Z~h up fn;nn sc.b.®.l on a Friday and Za~b a~ed "re.al 47 See Claim Seven_ ante- for further favorable testimony that Rachel could .. h.ave provi4~d gt:J (:miW$ ~~Jf.~ 127. • • weifd·~·w.ee~nd}' (6.1 RR,at 83.) Prior·to pickiilg.Zath up &om school,. Cargill had rep$tedly told.MaU no~ tQ c~ Z~.t, '$ ha.ir.. (fd) 1\,fa¢ testi.fjecl ~~ o.n S~day of that weekend, he noti'ced a large bruise· ori Zach~s foreh~ which ~ ~ coveted by his Pai.r. (If/. at 84.) Based on lach's explanation fQr the brui~e, ~ decided to take photos far CPS. (ltL at as·.) ~ite not being @1~ to ~ ~9 what Z&:ch's ~l~t;.on. ~ly was for the injury, Matt later identified a photo of the .aercs·ot can. (Id at 86.) Matt stated that ~r he dropp~ off.Zad.t a~ sch9ol ~n Monday, he went to the. Sheriff"s depattment tO tep:ort ..Zach'.s injuzy•. (ld at 88-89.) CargUI \vas~ • ~ (jd ~ 89.) Finally, the S.tate calle·d Zath's fO:Urth grade English ~cher, Jo~ llQO~~. Jo~ ~ti.fied ·that she saw a brUise· about the size of a golf ball on Zacli's forehead dUring the. spring semester of 201.0. (59 RR. ~~ 26, 3'1.) She te#i.fied tba~ it was very noticeable. (id. at 32.) When she asked Zach What it was. .from, he gave her a stotydtat.she.fc;.iu.nd r.'yery unli.kely, ~osh"~dicwo~." (/d. at.26.) Despite the repeated testimo~y regarding Zach;s i~jury, counsel did little tQ ~bUt tbe iSs~. ll.le o(ily attempt by trlaJ counsel ·wa:s during the eross-- examination of.Johila Booker when co.wulel nl(de the P<>int that Jo~ cc;>uld J;to~ be sure that the· brul'se wa:s net a football injo.ry. (5:9 RR at 33.) Post-conviction 'inve:Sti~on bQ uncoverecl ~- invesu~tive report ~ provided an alternative eXpl~~tion f()r Za(:h's h)jury CIDd an a¢4itio~l wi~~s wh9 coul 141 • • oonneetion With walker's dea~ Har:rison hired investigator Danny· Green. In the c:ou,rse Qf O~'s it)vest_i¢.ion he int~mewed A.~ RobertS; a fri~d of Zach.. Green produced a repQrt b:as.E'd on that interview~ (Ex.. ~0 [.R,eport by Green].) In early May 2010, Gree~ intet'Viewed Adam at his h:e»me loca~~ iJJ. m~ ~e n:eigbbc)rhood as Cargilt':s. (Ex, 30 at ftl-2 [R~ott·by Ol'een].J At the ti.m.e Qftbe interview, Adam had knOwn Zach for approximately two years and visited Z~ch at Cargflf'$ home m.tee tQ fow tli;nes p¢r w~ (Jd at ,9.) Over the; course of'those two years A~ never observed Cargill hit or spank Zach. (/4. at !ft 1OJ Abom one week before the Interview, Adam went to Cargill's hollse to .see Zilch. (ld. at~.) Cargill inform~ hbn that Z~h was S~:YiJ.tg at w.s (~'s house.. (/d. at s.) Adam tlum had a conversation with cargill where he told. her that he· had setm Za¢h hurt the t~ part of hjs fore~}~ wbile p~y~ baSketball about a week ot tw.o -a~r spring break.. (Jd at W6-7.) Ada:m s~ted tbt Zach had to ·sit down ~~ hi:Ui:ng ~ head. (!d. at 1[7.) In the· Whitehouse school district, Spring break o.ccurre.d tram March 8. to~ 12, 2010,. (14. at ,8.) Fip_$l)y, A.~ st;ated that he has knp\.Yn Zach t6 tell stories to get what he ~ts. (ld. .at ~l3..) Th~ report i~elf rn~;t ~o.t ~ve been ad,miSsible at triaL However, it did provide integral fu.formatlon for the purpose of impeaching and/or· re:hUUi~g tJ:te State's account of Zach's lnjuzy. the report ptoVi.ded trial co.uns¢1 with ~ goo.d (~th basis. to question Zach about ~dam's vemion of the story.. CoUn.sel sho~d have asked ZlilCh whether the injury ocCUrred whlle t'l~yi;i'ig ba,sketball. If Zach denied that it did, then cOllilSel .should have further questioned him. tp develop tne nature of Zach's friendship with Adam. Co(msel c()uld _have complete.d the im~~hm~m 2:11dlo.r·re~l (d~ding on how Za~b ·~_sw~ tb;e qu~~ot:tS) ~Y retumiilg to the original question: "Ifyom friend Adam says he reme.m~rs seeing you hit. yoU{ ~¢ad. Qn the basketbail gQal around the tim!i= of yow f~head injury, would that ·he: true1;' .Even if Zach continued tO deny the .StOry, the jury would still 1~9 142 • • be ~tiij¢<1 ~~ th~ i.s an m~tjve expl~a#on for the injury to zach'.s forehead t}l~ w~ pmvi4¢4 b:y a fiien Rpbip~~ ·an4 Jo~ Book~ If ti;ley l:lad ~ ofthe.altemative explanation. Even i.fthey de~ied ~yiJ:t:g b~ tne- alterrw.ive ~ccoug~ colm$CI woul4 have·gotteQ the i.s~u~ out before tb~ jlJ:rY. ~ch'$ mjunr ~the ~;yst to tbe even~ tha~ eventually ted to Cargill beit'J.g cb~t'd wi~ c~pi~ rnWder. ~ -S11Cl.l, ~Y reasonable opportunity to ~s~ dolJbt ~ the: inj~. should have been pursuecJ:. It {s ID.e~pl.i~~le w_hy mal C:Qui)Sel did not: use the report as a tool to impeac:h, and/Qr rebt,rt ~e blj~ tp ~- CbUd i~u~ considetirt~ that it was coUrtSel's ow:n ittVestlgatOr wh~ c·o)ld!Jcted tile 'ipt¢rvi¢w. Trial ~1' s· tailure t~ u.~ the report. ~n$itu~ defi.c.ieg.~ perfonn.ance and ~udiced Cargill.. b. lQ_D,I_berly' S'-vlnslty Triai ®.Uilsel should have called Kimberly Slavi:snky'18 to d.~_onstra~e posi~ve 1!$p~ of C~gill's rel~onship with Zach. In additi~n to het- so¢ial histozy w·stimoey, .Slavinsky c:o.wd .have spoken specific:aliy w C~'s relationship with .Zach for ~e· purpose of rebuttin·g the Injury tO a. Child issue.. SlaY.iX1$ky .knew Cargill at th~ rJJne when C~U Uve4 ~- Wl).JteJ;Iouse, Texas.. (Ex. 12 at 11 [Atf. of Kimberly SlaviJ:lsky].) Her so~, N:ichol~ w~ in ~e ~¢ eiemerttaty school class as Zach and the boys played sports together. (id. at~.) Slavi.~y often ~w ¢ar.gil1 at spOi'ts ptaetices and games. (ld.) She liked Cargill and ''syntpathized with [h~r] becau$e sb.e was a sfngl~ mom ~4 b.er yol1Qger son was very tarnliunctious.;' (Jd) Nicholas spent the ·night at Cargill':s house ·a few 48 Shi.VirtkSy will be referred tO by her sUmam.e to .avoid confusion With the n~~ o.fthe Applic.ant:. 130 143 • • tim~ and Zach did the same at ·Slavinsky's ho1.1se•. (Id. at tp.) Nicholas enjoyed ·st,a.yin$ ~ C~ll' s h9LJ:Se. (/t.4.) Slavinsky was aroWid C~gill, Zach, and Luke often .and never saw Cargill be rough with them. (ld at 'd4J :she feU~ Za~h was comfortable cor:nlng to her i.f" he· needed anytltlng, a:nd he never mentioned being h1.Jrt by Cargill. (Id. at ~~ . ) L~ter- on, Slavbt$ky ev~ 'Wrote a le;~ on ~ll' s behalf for a CPS case. (id. at ~7.) H.ad Sl.~villsky been c~letJ 8:5 ~ Witnes:s, she could have teStified. to her perception of Cargill as a mother,. h:oth through her own obsel'Vations ~d her la;lowledg~ that Nichol~ e~}ayed ·spending time: at Cargill's home. The· positive int~ractjo~ tba! S~illSky ~d with Cargill and her- perceptio~ Qf Cwgilj' s relationship With Zadi were relevant to rebutting the. State's case. in aggravation and. the •· · should . . J~. ·• . have · . ·sed ofthem . . . been·appn By calling S1avi$ky at trial and ¢ros~xa.riiihing Zath., Matt RobinSOn; and Johila Booker With the report Written by Danny Green, coUilSel cc:iUld have east significant doubt on th:e s~~s accQunt of ~.h.'s mj1~JY:· C®.id.cm~ \he significance ofZach's injwy in the overall narrative of CargiH's prosecUtion for capiW, rjj.~rQ.t;-, qi_~l COl#]_sel' s f~.lure to cl:u~llenge the State, s version of· events m any meaningful way constitUted deficient perf<»~c~ and preju,dlced C~ll,s cOJ:istittitional rights .. C. c._rgiD was Prejudiced by Trial Counsel's Fail are to ~e~ut the Stafe's Case :ill Aggravation The S~ pres~n~ three topiC:S. of ap.v@ng evi~r,.ce through several \1Vitnesses that went Vir.tUally linchailenged by trial co~l. The St~te ·was given f~ reb.t. to esmpljsh that Mike West was given sole clistQdy of. DaVid because CPS ~m.an.d~ ib~ h~ ~ove D~vid fu>rn CargiWs· alxt_se; C~gil_l ~ult~d an unsUspeCting Sonja.West for no apparentteason·; and ·lath Robinson'sinjury tO his fc>teh~d·was a cle.ar-cut case ofchnd ab~. As ~v~der:tced. by tl'l~ St;ate'-s 4ec_i~lOJ1 144 • • ~o ~O.t:l~:t;~~ly ~ ~ th~ ~gg~:ayatjng t<>pics; t.bey were vit;a.l ~jury'~ verdict•. PoSt-cori:Vietiol) in"ve8ti$1tltion 4l:lcov~d· five Witi)esses and one report. that could have been U8ed to either lmpeach or rebUt the aggravating topics and the witnesses supporQ:~g tb~. fie: witile$Ses could have revealed that Mfke and Sonja West w~ ~dly th~ ·!PJ;J·oc~t 1111~ ered:i~le Wi~e~ ~~ they :were m.~de out to be a~ tri.al. However; be~~e I)Othmg was ~n~ ~0 reCti~ th~:~lr testi.mo.n.y, tl;le Jury had no·reason ~ questicm tbeircredibilitY. With :re~ ~ the l,J;iju:ry· to Iii Child ~e, co~l @.s.s.ed a ptiine opp~_ty 19 ~ clo.~ 01.1 w~ was cl~y tb~ catalYSt ~ the State's ptef~rted narrative a~ t,rial. l:4d cotinsel ~ed the Danny OJ'ee.n Repo.rt tp i~.b. Zach ~4 jn~~ the alt~~~ive accoun~ of l;iis il;ljury, ~~jury wouJd ~pre • like)y ) ques.Qoped Z_acb~$ story.. The altemafive a~oUAt w~ ·off~ by OIJ.e ·Qf Z,ach's goOd friegds (t¢11 ~ :t;~~~r®od ~o cl~ to ~ly Wj~~ tb~ i~jury f:taw.pening during a basketball ~e. The eVidence Iiiay have been even more compellfug consid~ring ~ Zach was TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAIUNG ·To IMPEACH FORREST GARNER WJTH U.I.E mUE NATUlU;: OF HOW IUS CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED Trial counsel has a d:Uty to irivestlga,te ·and present ¢vidence· at the · punishment phase of trial. See APA Guidelines, Gtiid~li_~~ lQ.7•1 0. ~8.Not Qnly ~ould co~l ~ffiqnadvely JJre:S.ent mitipting eVidence dming the pWiishment l.32 145 •• • phase, but. they must· .also rebut the aggravatjng evi9~~~ pr~~~d. by the s~~. Wigg(n:s, 539 U.S. ~ ·524; see ab(J ABA. G~.i4.e}(n,es, Guideline 1.1 cmt. ("At [the . . pumshm:ent) p~ de~ counse.l.mu~ bo~ rebU:t th~ prosecutiOI.l' s ~e· in favor of the death penalty· and affumatively Pi~ th¢ best p~si}:>Je case in favor of a sen:tence ather· th.~ de.~;;"); Gujc;ieline IO~ll(A) ($~~ing· th~t counsel has a co:ntin~ d~ tc) D.tv~~~ in,fo~tion. that rebtns the State's anticlp~ed ~ jn ~WVBY~dM). ~ d\ID' ~o. rebut evidence presented in aggravation ·includes the investfgatiQn of all so~ ofiinpe;!~~~~ ofpros«Utjon wltne$~· Forrest Gamer; an ex·l;~sb~d of ~.1, te8Qfied to a lttany of incldentS wbere b~ alleg~ ~vatil;lg be.lw.viw Ql:l ~ p~ of CargiJ}. These allegations went tmche:tked dUring cross-examinadort by d.efense counsel and ~bmtal evidence to ~M.llenge Gamer's assertions was virtu:aily nonooexlsteilt. (See Cbilin Eight, ante.) Despite- the fact that Gainer· pled guilty to two coun\5 of misdemeanor assault Wlth family Violence against Cargill in 2007, he was permitted to testliy that bis tQnViction,s were va~ed in 2011 ~~e h~ was actually the victim and not the a:ggte"ssor fu the incidents that gave ri~ to his original convictions. However, the true cJJ't\llD,s:tances by whl~h. G$.et's convi~ons w~ ~~~ were ~« ~ljcjtJy IJlade c~ear t9 the jury. Th~ l~~ of dis.tlosure of this mfotmatlQn ma4e it impos~bl~ for ~e Jury to fully ~d effectiveiy assess Gamer~s credibility. Beca\lse triai counsel was aware of the citeuinst,aitces ·smro\mdin$ both G.am¢r~s co~v~ctiotl$· an'd Si1b~q~~I)~· post-- convic~iOI1 diSin~ssal, yet did n Cargill the effective assiSWlce of counsel. As slich, Catgilf's rights under the state a1,td f~~ ·coi)St,itt;rtjon,~, $til~e $t~JQJY J.aw, ~4 Uriitc;4 S~~ Supreme <;(;~ ~d state ~e law were viol~. 146 • • A. For·rat Garatt's ·Testimony at the Punishm·eat Pbase of Cargill's T$1 W•s Detri.m.ental •~d Highly ~~Jti~.l Forr~~ Gat:n.er, Qargi)l's ex·husband ~ father of her yo.in'lgest soil LUke, t~:tied e~sively to a mu:lti~Q~ of ir:ttl~~~ry ~d e.r;tonnQus.ly ~vati.r:t$ incidents he allegedly eXperienced .as a result of Cargill's temper and volatile, n.al;\Jre,-: Q~er t~Jl~4 ~l c~.u spo~~ negat,ively of h~r previous e~-husbands 4espit.e th~ factthat·.he Ia:tew them t9 be ·g9QcJ pe~le (~3 AA·~~ 69,.:70); ~U ~olij itnn that her mother and eld~ ·S(lil David~ ~a4 (63 RR at 1i·73)~ Gam.er mmi~d Cargillbecau.~.she ~ unexpect~dly pregnant (~3 RR l¢ 76); an4 C~i.ll ¢rew o~· ~ ~gag~ep.t x:i.n8 he gave lu~~; (~3 .RR ~~ 93.) A44lpon~Uy., ~c=r testifi.ed c~.U. o~cm ....~sed h41l witb phope calls ap~ wb~ h~ tried to break Up with her and ~e refused to l~ve J;Us apartm~~ Gm:ner said ~e left hls apa$l~t ~d we11t ~ h;:s ~11~' l.louse an4 the·il~t me>.r_irit:lg ~e.~ed ~ ~Ii'l~ll~ had set his ap•e.n.t .on fire..49 (63 RR ~~ 8.3""8.5:~) Mo~v~; Q~~ ~~.i.fi.~ (o an oc~oil wh#e Ca:tgiU a)Ieged,ly bec·ame irrationally angey over a bag of chips ~ . ~4 ~n opeJ;l~ ~"' ro~ lti.JD in tb~ ~ tmd ~b,e~ SlJ..d pbysicalJy ~~ulte4 Garner'·s young SOil Tuck~. (63 RR ~ 95.) G:amer· <;laimec;l Cqill falsely acc~d him of ·bteaklng her jaw during· the aJ.terc~OI):• followi:ng t4e incident, tn.m~· c)$.hn.e4 Catgill tried to help b.i_s el'. .wi.f~ ge~ ~ll.$toQ)' Qf Tucker by ~e~· Garner bad a drug problelll, but then ·backed down when he proliiised not to press· charges agailist her for the assault on TUCker. (63 AA at.·~7-99.) Oa.r:t:ter ~er i~ifi~d ~~-t ·h_is. relr~#onsb.ip with Cargill tm.d.ed after she hit Tucker;· ca.rglu refused to relinquish hi$ b~longin~ ail~· he moved OU~· c~u 49 Garner provided unsubstantiated, speculativ.e, and yet: 'inflammatory 4eta.il.s ~~ why be tb9ught Cqi}J w~ th.e or:te who set the (~, i_l',lcluc;ll.J;Ig the fa¢~ tha,t a fr.ained photogr~ph of' hi.m and tiis .son and .nephews was placed in the comer of a be4room andhad no soot underneath it. This led him to believe ~llleo.n.e delibera~ly m~vedthe photo prior to ~e the. (63 RR at 89,-90.) 134 147 • • verbaliy as5a~lted l:iim; Cargill ~c~ G~er's S;paru;nent d99r il); Ca;rgil_l to•d ~~r ~e WaJ1fed to have her ex•boyftlend Matt Robinson killed; Cargill USed Garner's credit BJ)d' ~·cards withou~·a\Mori~on; Cargill tiled ~u~t ~l$.ges ~ainst G.aro~ f9r a.Q. indde.nt ~~ oceur:red ~onths prior to n~r contacting the pnlice Simply bec.a~ he would.. n:«. reWm h~ c.~l.$;· c~u $,few ~~i;r i~~~ son J.,~~~ aroun~ m. )iis c~ sea~ ~atrie.r; C~i.ll threw )lo~ cQffee on G~er; <;::.argill aliEmt.tted O:am~ from his ~other; Ca,rg1l:l threatened to burn Garner's mother and son in their h~me; and C~gi)l .secretly m:ade herself a {cey to Garner's· apart;rftem. {63 RR at 102-'19.) Garner ~ned thtn every time h~ c~ed me po,lice to file a report regartfing cargill's behavior nothing was do·ne because of hls prior~~ for as~lting her~ (63 RR ~ 1)3•14,) ·The cro$S!"~jnaQ.on of"Gamet by defense counsel focused on Gamer·'s .subStance abuse issu:es and h~Qty of t,reatment ~4 the fact.that.he,continued to. cail and text Cargill with relative frequency .despite the bad ac:ts·he alleged were c.~tted agaix:V¢him.30 (63.R,Ra~ l35.-48.) on re--direct examination Gamer teStified that he believed Cargill was bi- pol.ar ~11$! her mood c.~e4 lll<,e "·flippi.r.lg ·a sWitc.h;" he l)ever knew Cargill to have m1y sigruficant medical issues; Cargill violated a custody agJ;Cement by picl9oo I,.Uke up ~ d~e~te in MJ,y 20 I o·; G~- fe_.ed reta.l.i~~o.n trom Ca:rgi.U With tegatd to hls agreement to let Cargill's mother take temporary ctistody of Luke; Cargill fax~ his· atrest ~.rts to J:tj$ employer; $t:ld h~ w~ not aware Cargill re~~d bit:n to CPS for ''abaodoru:nen~" (63 RR at 148-60..) On re-crQ$.s ex~nation Gamer testjfj._ed th.!il~ be ~· n..~~ sure i.f t;l:l.e p~l.i~e offlce_t who .50 Tri~ cotmsel cJj4 QOt a.uth:~ticau.: t;be re<:OI$ re6.~Jtg the text messages betWeen Catgil1 a:nd Garnet and were prohibl.ted from introducing them as evide!J.~e. Trial colli)Sel was limi~ to asking Garner only if he remem~ m:akin.g or recel.ving the relevam wx~ me~c;.s. (63 RR a~ l3S.-39, 14·3~) 135 " 148··· ... .. • • respOnded to one of the domestic violence calls between himself and Cargill accused 1Wn Qfinj~ ~1{.· (63 RR ~~ 161..,63.) B. Trial Counsel Failed to Imp.eadl Garner with Information RegardiiJ.g How IUs· Crimina) Convidio_ns for ~.ault Were V~~-ted ~g ~ e~~inatio:Q.; .Gatn~r testified that be was never tl:ie ~r in altercations With Cargill, but only did things t.o her in ord~ to c;fefen.d blmself (63 RR a~ 71.) He claimed that back in 2007, Cargill "filed o® felony an~ two misdemeanor:s of (~ily ~.sault vipl~~~ agsn_nst him and h~ and his family spent ovet-:$27,000 defendirig.the cases. Oa:rner testified it was upsetting to him tp ~ch ~is e:lqerly p•~nl! Iw.v~ to gp back to work in order to help him fiiiailcially. (63 RR at 77·13.) Gamer·teltified that he ultimately entered a plea agre:ement tQ baye aii ofth,e cases"dlsp~--;, (63 RR at 78.) District Auorney Bin~ gkec) ~er w~~ the ple.a agreemen~ he en~d · int_o w~ claiming "I don't know"--1 don't know·who handled the case._.,sl ~ s.ai4 th~ dw W$~ that if" he ~led guilty to two misdemeanors the felony would ~ dtop.ped and he would be sentenced to two yems of probation. '(63 RR at 78_.) Gamer claimed that his attorney Bobby Mlms wanted lilin to go ~ trial but he did not becau:se he was ~:us~~ financi~lly; ~ scared for Qte s~fety of himselfan4 hjs kids·; m:td ~ fe_IQ~Y c<>_nvic_tioJ.:t woul4jeop:ard~~ bis ~bi_lity to. ·S\lppo"- b_i_$ 1948.. Gamet was ultimately conVicted of assault family violence in ·2001 and sentenced to two fe·ars o_f pro~on anc;l cq!Ji_lli4nif:Y .service-. DA Binghairt told the jury, "I didn't handle· those cases" and said he never talked to Gamer before ~ c;f_ay of Gatner's.teStill)oriyat Catgiil's· trial.. (63 RR at 79-80.) 1 ' Even if District Attorney Bingham did not in fact handle Gamer's guilty pleas bac}t in 2'007, l_ti$ ~ertion. tbaJ he did ppt know wh9 bandle4 the c.~ sugg~d to the jtey th$ he ~so h~d nothing al a_ll to do wim the ~onVi~tior;a_s be-ing va~a~ed i,p 2911, whic.h WS:s dtsingen~ous at best MJ"; Bingham himseiffiied Gamer's writ of habeas carplls~. (See, Ex. 28 (Jomt.Applic·ation].) 136 149 • • Mr. Bingham further proVided that in AUgUst 2011 "one of his assiStants went dpwn" wit,ti M,r. Mli;P,S @,Ild had tl;Le ~ult conviction removed from CJ&n)~'s· · record.. Gainer testified he ne·e.ded the conViction removed b«a~ b~ cou_l4 n.o~ g~t. ~tobi:s respiratory th¢rapy school program With an assault conviction felony~ Gamer testified tliathe. appeared in court and pled g@~~ ~~e cn~l aske4, '\ ... ~d the PA~s of_li_ce ~ejt;t ~-d OJ:! SOll1~ JP.n~ of joint motion I guess and cleared your retQrd-i_s ~-tight.? Is that (a:irr' To ~bi~h G~r responded, '·'Ye_s s.i.r~'-' (63 RR, ~ 1-34..;3-5~) That was the ft)il e~ of trial coimsel's cross- ex:amip~~on on the 'i:SS\le• However; the jury was not priVy to the full Story regarding how Gamer's conviCtions for ~sault with family vi·QJ~nce---:-vlolence ~~ Olrglll her:selt:-· were inconspicuo_usly Set a5ide without ,a shred of newly dis.c:overed evidenc·e, a ~tfce that iS virtUally unheard of In the criminal jUstice systein. Ott August 18, 2.011_; ~ Joip~ Appl_i~i 150 •• • The very nex:t day, August 19, 20U, a hearlng was held. in front of Oistrict CoUrt .Judge Kerry Russell. Jq_dge R,~U w~ imm¢ ~2 Mi'~ Mfrns. was liilavalbible tO. personally appear at the writ heari'I1g and ~ttom~y R~bert P~~e ~s~_te4 O.~er~. (Ex. 29 ~ 4 [Transcript ofHe~ggJ.) 138 151 • • reticence in granting tl_le Jo~t req~ beca.U$e Gmn~· pl~ $Ui.hY ang :s~rved l;Us. sep.~ apd Jp ~verse ~Jl of~t ~led into queStian the· integrity of·the jUdldal system. (lc!. at .19.) Gamer testified that h¢ would no~ haVe pl«f g~lty b~}{ m 2007 h.ad i~· not been far his fear of Cargill and the fact that he jUSt wanted it to ~ over~ (J.t!_.. • Zl-2'2.~-> P~rsoD:al kn9Wle48e b\J.t only ~ what h~ been oon:veyed to hlril by Mr. :SinglWn. This included the tact. that in 1nve$tlgatihg the case against Cargill, Mr~ Bingham now believed Gamet to be a Victim and that Gatn.er pled gUilty undet · duress.. (id. at 23-24.) Mr; Pace te~d ~.Garner w01)14 rec~ive no benefit fot hiS teStimony against cargill and truly the oilly reason for the joint motion was SQ ~ Gart1er co(lld ~d resp~C)l)' ·~~ol:- (Id.. at 24-25.) C. Trial Cowu•l's Failure to Impeach ForrestGa.-..eB" Prejod.ieed CaJ"8ill Tr4U co~el ~ w~ll a:w·~ of Garner's posl~nviction Writ and subsequent heariilg. (See Ex. 29 ·at 28 [Transcript of Heating}.(Cargill'$ auomey Mr. Harrison was present at the hearing in question).) Yet, fot ine;cplicable > reasons did not present evidence of the strange proceeding and unique restJlt,. The JllrY shoUld have been provided with the infOnna.tion ~- it is exceedihgly rate for th~ Di_sm~~- A#omey's Office (and unb~ard of in Judge R~ll~s court) t9 in~~e beh;;lif of ~ i"divi.d~ wh~ pled gwlcy and SlJccessfully completed Ql) probation .several years before seeking to vacate their c·onviction. There was po newly discoVered evidence preser:1ted. aijd no re-opening of the invest.igati_on r~santing me !.:U)Qerj_yips ~~-~~ wim f~.i.ly viol~ce ~~,S.• . Gamer's testilnoily was integral to the State's presentation at pu,nisl:un~r1t; as he: tesnfied to the· ir_ttense an<,i p~rvasive 11~~- of C~gtll' s aJleg~ ~tra~ic ~d violent ~vior~ IP.$t¢.ad of ~haJ:a*riZing th~ rel~OilShip for \Vha~ it truly W.Cl$-a vol~tiie and dys.functi()D_~ m~.age WTQUgh~· with m~tual physical and emotional 139 152 • • abuse, Gamer wu portrayed as an unsusj>ecting vi~m of Ca.rsill '·s ~e ~4 jn,stabilil:)'. If tri.~ ~()1;111Sel ~:ad h:n~h~d Ga:rP~ wi$ ~~ Ml de~ls of ~ow his conYictiQns were ultima~e,ly v~t~d 'il ~ m(Jre l,ikely t,h,an J.1()t tha,t tb.e jury would have c:llscre4he4 the reroa,ip ~d~~i}W tigbts.. Not irtfQrtflitlg the jury of the· fact that Di~ct Attorney :amgh@.l was ii;l~i~tely involved in vacating Gamer-'s convictions, nor conveying t() th~ jury that Gamer's po$t-cQnviction ~me4)' w.as bjgbly ®_iqu~ ·ancJ vi_rtually tu:l:h~ ot ~Jed Cargill the e.fJ~ve ~isltmce of her own tri'a.l couns~l... Thus, Cargil.l 's d.e.ath ~e.nce shou14 be reversed. 153 • •• CLAiM TEN rRlA.L COUNSEl. WERE INNEFFECfiVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO HEARSAY STATEMENTS OFFEIU;D )JY JlL;L L.o~· ouiirtg the· punl!iihment phase of Cargill's tri.aJ, the State eli¢1ted multjpJe, hearsay Statements frOm witness .Jill Lowe. Lowe was permitted to testify t~ ~~m·oni~.• ol).t...of~o~ ~tel';fients by LUke Garner and Zach Robmson withou.t objectioo frOm trial counsel. As a result, the jury was pn*.n~ 'Yi.Jh ·~isslble testiJ:noJty ~t~pliSljing that Luke: deeply feared his mother,. Cargill had lllt Zach in the face on at least one occ.aslort, and Zacli feared. ~S ho~e to stay with his oWl) mother. Counsel's failure· to obJect to these hearsay statements cnnstituted deficient performanc.e und~r preYailjng prof~.i~ nonn:s at the· time of Cargill's· trial.. AddltionaUy, the inadmi'ssible eviden~ that was placed before th~ jury as -a ~i:t.l~ of oounsef's failures prejudiced Cargill's nghts ·uruter the State .and federal C<)nsiitii:tlons, state statutory law, a:nd U~te4 St,ates Sup~~ne Court and stat~ case law. As-.silch, Cargill's sent.ence must be reversed A. Tri•l C,q._D$el ~- ' :OUt¥ to Pres~rve Error by Mald'ilg Proper Objectio~ Art iP~ffectjve a$.~i:stAAce of ~o~~l cla.i.J;n requjres a sllQWing t:h.at trial CQu,IJ,S~l' S ~rfOrii!a:nCe W~ deficie:nt and that the deficiency preJud.ic«i C~i'Jl. S~riclf.JaiJI!., 466 U.,S.. ~t 687; Jimenezt 364 S. W.3d at 88·3.. To establish deficiency~ Cargill must ·show tha:t. her cowis'el•s repr~en.~~on fell below an objective standard of re·asonableness. Strickland, 466 U$. at 688. 'The ~-~lenes.s of coW~sc=l' s p~o~ce- is· ~easured by the prevailing professional norms at the tirne of trial as ~fleet~ in tbe American B.tJr Assod~,rt~0n standards and the lfke. 14 To es~bU.~.h prej~dice, Cargill ~~t ~ww ~ ··~~le propab.i~ity .tha.t, but for coun.sel's unprofe$sj'onal errors, me ~.lt of the pi'()Ceeding would have b~ different.;' /d. at694; thompson, 9 S-.W.3d at 812. 141 154 • • Trial coWisel has a. dUty to object to inadmiSsible ·eVidence or im~r atgilm.ent at1d ~t.abUsb :3 re'!ord r~flectlng ~dverse· rulings by the cOUJ't See All.A. GUidelines, GUideline 10.8, cmt. ("One e>f the most fimc:lamen~ dmi~ qf ·~ aJ:.torn.ey 4ef~g ~ capi~ case at trial is the p~ation pf any and: ~U conceivable errors for· ea-ch stage of appellat~ and p:ost-convictlo~ reyi~ • • •"'); ABA Standards fot. Criminal Justice~ ~feme FunctJqn,. ~7.1 (d) ("defens:e co~J ~ • dUty to ~ve tbe ·reeord reflect adverse rulingS"}. In order to estabiish thai counsel was ineffeCtive for fa.ililt'g ta object, Cargill mlist show that the tria.l j~cl,ge wowc;i lu,.v.e c·oninlitted error had the objection been ma.de and overruled. Mr.irliilez, 330 S'.W.3d at 901. Hearsay teStimony is not only i.tiadmi'ssible uader Texas Rul~ of EVidence 80~ b"!J.J ~ v.iQ@te$ C~'s rights und-er the Confrantation Cla~se of the SiXth Amendment 'The Confrontation Clause guarantees crimin.al c;iefen~:ts '-~e right . ... • to be confronted. With the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. In Crawford v. Wc4h:ingtcm, the. Su:preme C.o1,Irt belc:J tb~t o~-,of'"'C9urt, testimoriial statemeiltS. are 'inadmissible Un.der the COnfrontatiOI;l Clause unleS:S the wi~ is u~v~labl_e ~ 155 • • July 2010 that cargill had used Lowe's Identify to set up a cell phone contract. (14 at 75-7~.) Cqi(l ~ run up ~ bill 9f over $9()0 ~ Lowe·'s nam~: \\hlch Caigill's parentS later paid. off.. (ld. at 76.) Nevertheless~ Lowe's credi~ was damaged by the identify theft. (/d.) Lowe· also testified that she used. to s~ bruis.es on J~e and th~ CatgilPs kicl.s ·seemecl to b~ ~·in~~e 156 • • A. I've been told by the childtett, by one child. Q. Who :WU· that?. A. ~~b:. Q. He D.ci t9ld. you SQane tb.i!lgs h_is ~~,m had done to him, punclling.him? A. Y~-. i t~Qij't knQw if the word was "piincit;' but he was fiigh~ed. (62. RR at 8,7-88.) Despite th:e· fact. that Lowe bepn her ;msw~ by sta~ir;lg that ~e h.ad not. personaily seen the event happen, Lowe went on to say that she had been ''told;' something by· one of Ute chlldret?., a,nd th#. the s~ rep·~ted tha~ Lowe· had been "told,-; abOut the incident in its filial question, CoUnSel did. not o:bje:cL Had co®$el object~d., the ~I cow:t wOUld have s~ta.lned the objection under Texas Rtile ofEvidenc:e ·802. After that, Lowe began' to tell a story ·abo.ut "an incident vvidl [Zach's] tonsils that just tore [her] up." (()2 RR ~ $7-88~) At ~t point, trial coun~l objected to hears~y and lack of notiee under Texas Rule .ofEYid~ce 404(b). (/d. ~t 88~89.. ) Th~ s~~:te ~l&iried thadt did not know anything ab(;)ut the incident that Lowe was app~y abo¢ t~ go into. (ld. ~ 9().) Tbe tri.lll co~ ~~ed. tb~j~ and Lowe was taken on voir dire by the Staw to detennine wwha:t ex~y she W$$ going tQ testif;Y . (/d. ·~t 90-9 L) l..mve ~lain~ ~hatth~· was a time whe_n Cargill and za~h came CJVer to her house after Zach h~ ~s· ttmsils ~ovec:l. (Iti ·at 91-. 92.) When Cargill left the room~ Lowe asked.lach ifhe wanted to go home.and he re~onded that h~ did not. (/d. at 92.) She then asked him if he was ~ed and he re:spo.nd~d Ut.a~ be was:. L~ ~~ by w:ri,tjl)g h~ c~ll ph. piece ofpape_ran4 givi_JJ$ ittQ .Za~b wi~o.u~ Ca:rgi.ll's kn9wl~~e.• (/4) Bas~ on tbe St~~e' s· voir di.~; coWISel st,ated tl)at' he b~d I)O objection t~ 1;he testimony. (/d.) The jury was called back into the coUrttoom and the State restim:ed itS dfre.ct i44 157 • • examination. (JtL at 93.) Lowe recounted the story again, this time before th~ j1,1tY. (It/.) Q. (By prQsecutPI") Go ah~ I'm ·sony. I think when you left, Zach was.on the·- couch and-he was.staring atyou.. Go ahead.. A.. Ple~ wjiji his ~yes. And Kim h.ad gone to IDY office or the batbr®ro Qr Son:tewb~re. And I Ieane.d over and win~ tO him, wAt~: you-are you afraid?" · APd be .saJ_~,-,..hc::· j~ ~~~ed ~· ~e wi~ hjs eyc::s ,~d w~~ like that,. "~d you don·,t want to go home, do you?'' And he:said (Shakes head.) Q. Ol@y• A. And so I wrote my cell phone- ii,umber dqwn and I pii~ i• ·in his hand. (14_.) As prQmi~e4, tri.al C?O~l 4.id Q.Qt object to the h~Y:• The $tate then tOQk the opportuni~ to c~fy ~ za~ W~ llOt $C~d about having hi$ tonsils rernove_ci, ~t ra,t:A~ ir_lsin~~ tl:m.:t he was :~id <>fhis o~ I:Jl.O~er. (Itt a~ 93:.94. ) .Za~b's .tl~ n~ ~~- ~elJ, whi)e ~t ve~~ ~ression$,.cl'early ~ify as '·'nonverbal conduct of·a per8on .•. ·intended by the person as a .subStitUte for verb~lexp.-ession/' See. r.e,(. R. ·Evid·. 801(a)(2).. Had trla1 counsel objected to Lowe's statements either on hearsay or Confrontation c·la~ .gr()Unds, tl;le ttW · coutt ·woUld have erred in ovenuHng the objection. Thus, trlal counsel's failure to o~jec~ conS~~~ d~fh:if:i:l~ ~orm~ce. See Martinez, 33.0 S.W"3d at 90L C:. Cargill was Prejud.iced by Trial Counsel's Fallu.r'' to Obj¢d to ~be Hearsay Stat~ments · · Trial couns:el's failure to object to the hearsay statementS offered by LQwe prejuc:ijc~ Cargill's cons:timtional ri$lJts. Lowe still would have be¢n able to t_estify t.o the more geJ'lc::ral ~:vat4tg i~su.e.s sucn ~ ~ lde.n.tJ~ thej\ an4 seeing bruises on Jamie when lie. was a child. However,_ the. mote specific stones regarding· Carii'Il' $ ~Hege.d al;)U.se of ~u.ke an,d ~~b were f~ t:n.9re 4.~-~iJ.lg ~ 145. 158 • • Catgiil·'s case. Lowe's aceo\int of Luke saying that he believed Cargill wo:uld hurt. hUn be:ca'U$e hebroke a thermoll)~t~pa,i,l)~ed $.vivid !m~~ofC~U as someone who would .abilse her children for .seemingly 'insignificant a~~ The impac;:t of Lowe'·s t~ony was ampfified by Lowe's repeating, ''My mama is goingw kill m:e." Moreover, i.owe·;s hearsay testimony regarding Zach .successfully p·ainteci him as· a roeek and helpless ·subject of C.m:glil'·s ·~.gry S!)d ®usive ten4eficies. Trial coi.msel was give multiple opportUnities to prevelit the jury frOm hemi.ng LQwe'$ ~~~of Z~h, paJ,e and~<* on her couch, telling Lowe that he was afraid to go home with his own. rp.o~¢r~ By.simply objecting w Lowe's h~y a.ccOUfits,counsei could have relegated her testimony to general obserVations that she JlUUie over the )'eats·~ She knew Cargill. I~ ~ S~ was allowed to present oompefling aggravating evidence without ch:a.ilenge from the def~. C~i's (~we. tO cha.llel';lge th~ State's presentation in these areas constituted meffective assis.talic:e· and p~jtidic.ed Ca1gj.U's right$ und~ the sta,te a:n4 fedC:r$.1. ConstitUtions~ state statUtOry law, and United. States Supreme CoUrt. a:nd state case l~w. Fcir the:$e ~011$, Cargill's Ser$mpe should be ~v~~ CLAiM ELEvEN CARGILL'S DEATii SE.NTENcE WAS AR.B:trAIULY AND · CA.P~IO.OUSJ.,Y ASS~GNE.P ~~S~:O ON TilE JURY·,s· ANSWE:R TO ~ UNCONSTrlti'I'IONALL'Y VAGuE FIRST SPECIAL iSSUE Texas employs a unique sent~cing scheme whi~ requires t,he ju.cy ~ pre4i~t "'wheth~· th~ is ·~ pro~bility that the defendant would commit criJ:nii;J.al act.s of vi~I~ce m~t would c~~Me ~continuing th~t to society/' Tex:. Cpde· 159 • • Crim. Proc_, M 37.071 § 2(b)(l).53 rh~ .Ameri~ Bar·As,sod_atio~ \-'ABA") has long recognized the probl~ms with this ~ special ~SSI,l~. See Qarej'oot ~· ~telle, 463 U$. 880, 930 (i98.3) (Bla~k:¢~ -1.,., Q.i$.sei)fJng) (ci#l:lg the ABA amieus bdef f~r the dai.ro .tblJ.t j~ are t)oi w~JJ.,sW.ted to pred,ict tP.e· probability of a defendant committing cril_nin:al acts of viol~ce .io the fim.u"e). Most ~ntly, dle ABA rel~ The "Texas Capital.~sl)m~~ ~-8$.$~1)! Rq10rt whi~h called on Tex~ to "abandon. altogether·the .u~ of the·~ :t1mn"e c:lang~e_$s' $Peci~ i_ssye'~ -~ i~ and oth~ ~pectS of the Texas sentencing scheme "place liinitS on a juror's ·ability to giVe fuil consid~J"Stion tO any evid,~ce that ~ght ~rve as a basis for a sentence- less than death.;~ ABA Death Penalty Due Process Review Proj~ EvaJ71!1#ng- Fai'nt$$ an4 Accuracy in Stat~ Death Pe1JQ/ty Systems~· 'Tb!!· T~ Q:zpital P'iii:tUhment .Assessment Report, at viii, ~ (S.ep~be.r· 201.3) (!-.CAlJA Te~-~: Ass~s8ment Repc:nf'). Among d)e ABA's con~rns· wi~ tbe T~~ SCQ$e is that the key tetlns of the fitst special issue are liildefihed. See. ABA Texa$ As~.smei.lt Report ~ 30$. Ad41tionai.Iy, the ABA notes that jUries ~list una.njmous.ly ('mc;l ,a probability tll~~ a defendant will corrunit fu~ ..a~ of" Viol~c~ befQre ~hjns the 'N~$.tj9_n of mitigation, thu_s placing the first ~ial is§li~ "at the ~ter of the jm'y' s punislunent decision." ABA Texas ~ssmentR~rt ~~ 307. The ooncerns raised by the ABA are con.si~~t wi~ viola~ions of Cargill's Eighth and Fo.tirteenth Amendment rights a:s articulated in Supreme Cowt doctti~. The first spe:cial issu:e ·is iinc:Onstitu:tlanally vagtie, fails to narrow the class of d~dl-eligible defend.an:ts, le:&d$ tC) th~ a;rbi~ l!ll" c"'priciol,IS imposition of the ~3 If jurors answer this qliestl'on, referred to as Sp@ia1 I~su.e On:e, with a ·~ves," jurors are as~ed to answer anQt4er SpecW ~~\le . •ft;l)_~ j~rors ~wer "No;' to this. question, the defendant is automatically seiiteiiced tO a term of Hfe wi_thout tbe po_ssi)lility o.fp·arole. 147 160 • • dea~ ~~' and llmjtS th~ jmy'·s ~bUicy to fPVe W:ll. con,slderation to evidence that ~Y .serve as a. basis for a. senten@ less than death. .As su.c11, Cargill''$ d.e.a1h sentence· was unlawfully and _un¢onmrutiona.lly im~ in Violatic;n o.f b~ appll~able· sta~~ &J~d fedeJ"al Co~~«m.al righ~· and lJni~~ St#es S~~e Co~ and state case ·Iaw., and must therefore be reversed. A,.. fi.e Fint SJ"-C_i-.1 .b&Jie is Uuoonst;i_tutionally' Vague aud Fails to Narrow the Cl.aa. of~~.,;Ell~i"~le n·eteadaats Article 37.071, S¢tion 2(b)(l) ofthe T~as Co4.e ofC~i~ Proced~ is uncon~ttiY.Oilally vague i~ ~ itfai.l:S tO defi.ne any Qf the key t~~ ~ the. first sp~j~ i.ss~~• .Nl. ~ re!;l~}~ ~'U]l!f.Or:s ~ le(t to comprehend [these, terms] so broadly ~a deatb sem.~ee \YOW.d be Q.e~~ ~ ~ ~ly every c~i1;al mW'dei' c~e." ABATe~ ~sm~~ Rq:,ort ~ -vi.~i. The Supreme CQU;rt h:liS long held th$ j11ror 4i~~on, m~t be ~~lecl iJ) capjta) c.~s. Gregg v. GerJtgia, 4:28· tJ.s·. L53, i89 (1976) (cit.fug FU17!lfUI v. Geq~, 4:08 v~s. 2:38 (1972) (per CuP~) (~·When, dis~re~ion Is a(fotded a sen.tencing bo.dy on a~-~. grave·~ the detet;m~~on ofwh~1ber ·a~~ iife should be taken ot spared, that discretion must be sUitably diretted and limited so as tQ mi.n.unJze-:-tb~ ri_s~ «,>f"wholly ~i~ ~d c~prlcious action~,.'). In Godfrey v. Georgia, the Court heid ·that a .state's aggravating fa:ct6rs must not be d~tm,ed in such. a way ~ people of otdina:i_y sensibilities couid find that. nearly every murder m~t tl).e stated criteria" 446 U.S. 420; 428:.29 ( 1980). In ord~r t9 E,iv~id tb~ arbit11:uy ~d capriciol.J.S· iplposjtion of t4~ Q.eath pep~.Jty ·s1;ruc~ down ~ Ftff111an, states· must narrow the class of death'-el1gfble defen:dant.s "by providlng speci.fic and detaHed gUidance to the sentencer:" McCieskey v. Kemp, 48i U.S. 279, 303 ( 1981} (internal citations and quotation Qmitted); see al$() Mf;l)H!.a.rd v. Cartwrigh_t, 486 U.$. 35(;, 36,4 (l988) ("Since Furf1.Ul.n, our \ . c.~ . have i'ris.isted th,at- the .. ' . channeling and limiting of the senten:cer' $ d'scretio.n in iJnpQsing th'e· d¢ath perl.:;Lity X48 161 • • i.$ .a ~~~~ cm,.sti~oll!:ll req~,nt for suf:licient)y miiiimi:zlng the· risk of wholiy atbi~ and c:.apiicio$ ~on/'). While the first. speer~ issue is not·p~ed to thejmy unu1 th_e Plmi.~~t phas¢ of r,ial, :it ll)Ust be found beyond a te$3Qnable douht before· (D.itig~mg eVidence may be c:onSidered.. Tex. Code· Crlln. Proc. Art~ 37.~071 § 2(bKe). Accorc(ingly, "It. acts as a de facto determin.aJ:lt of death-ellgibiiity an,d therefore must mea:nlngfu.ily ria'rrow th.e clas$ of death-eUS,ible defendants.. Tex.as does not stamWri\y detme the key terms in ·the first special i~e. Ratiber, the t~ItD.S ·~ left to be, int~:rpreted ~ng tp their ordinaey i;il~~i~g~ s~ Druery v. State, 22:5 S.W.Jd 491, 509 (T~~ Crim. App~ 2"()'07). Absenl a $1:atlltory d.~tu,.~tiQr.l t9 1;h._e cont,raryt Ute ter:t:n· ''j)rob~~li.ty" i,s ~naQ~Y understood to r.nean somt=· '·'lilcelih.ood of th~ oc®Jro)Ce Qf ~Y l'W~~ fcmt:l of~ event;' Grqnvi!!/ .,, St.D!e, 552. S.W.2d i07, 111 ~ 6 (T~ Ctjm. App. 1976); see also Jurekv. Stqi{J; -522 S..W.2d 934,945 (Tex.• Cnm. App. 1975) (Odom, J., dissenting) ajfd sub -,pm. Jurek v. r~,428 tJ.S. 262 (1976) (~e Stante does nqt.reqliire~ . partic:Ula:r degree. of probabilitY hut oidy directs that 5ome probability need b.e fotii14.."). Neith.et is the degree of violence specified. "Criminal acts of violence" could re·asonably range· from capital murder all the way doWil to simple assault. See CJ:ujstopher Slobo&i.~ 1 Cq.pital Punishment and Dangerousness, in MENTAL DIS.ORDER AND CRiMINAL L.AW: RE$PO~SIBILITY AN.D COMPrrr£NCE 119, 121, 12:5 (Robert F .. Schopp et al. eds"7 2009) (questioning what qualifies as "dangerousness" and ''~inal acts of violence"). Thjs prayed t9 be proplem:at1c for CarSiil '$ ju,ors. Duri.ng the~ plll1ishmei1~ ph~e deli:heratio:r:tS. th~ f~ se.r.~ Q\lt ~rote s~at:ing, "W~· have a disagreement on what Criminal ,violence cQnst.itut:eS. A few jl,rror want this c,iefined~" (5 CR 978.) Th~ note requ~ examples in ~djtion to a definition. Despite the jurors' apparent confusion over what, in fa.c~ the first 14.9 162 • • sp:e:cial lssu~ was asking of th_em, th~ CQw.t s.imply ~f~4 t,h¢rn back to the CoiJrt's ~~~ ~d ~cted them to contin~· dellb'et$on:t (()9· RR ~t US.) Esseiltiaiiy, Cargill's jury was asked to determine whether there. is any likelihQQd that CBfSiU ~igh~ ~ml~ a.iiy ~.ofviole(l~ in the·tuture·~t poses a comiij.umg threat to so.ciety. P~chiatris.ts, however, are ~le to completely I'1,1le ~ the possfbll1ty of ~:~ny person collllliitting futUre acts of violence; much less a person m. was jUst. canvlcted of· a Violent ctime.. ~ M.i~ha;el L. Ra,d.elet & Jam~ W. Marq~. Asseasing Nondangerolisnw Durttag Penalty' Phmuis ofCapital ·Trials, 54 AI.B,. L.. REv. 84,, 849 (1989-1990) ("'l"redic:tion;s Qf Violen~ behavipr are difficUlt because the pro · · babilities . . in the prediction considered .. are ' conditional. ... ,, '. . ... ~ iS; e~ of Wi; giv@.. c~ circumstances_~ might engage In violent he~viQt ·m the futUre; thus, each ofu.s has a.non-zero probability ofkiUin.g ~other."). E.V~ when predictions are· based on actuarial data, which are now CQnsideted to be slisbtly m()re ~<=:c:tu"a~ U'J..~ clui.i~ ~:tions, ~ defep~t's ~ of comnii:tt.h.:l$ a:cts of' criitliillil violen"9e iS phrased in tern'ls Qf non-zero ~e probabiliti~. See, e.g., L~ura S. Gtiy, et at, Aisessing /lisle of V'wlence Using S~ctured Profe~siQnal JudgmeJZt Guidelines, 1.• FOREN:SIC PsYCHQL•. PR,Ac~-. May 2012, at 2~2 ("lMental Health ProfesSionals] ate encouraged to communicate level of risk using cra~egori~ level_s of low, rno®,J11,te, ~d high.''). Th:C f~.t ~ every ~~~ ~ ~ g91:1~:;r;~ FQ~:biJ.ity of comll').i~jn~ ~~ acts of viole·nce shows tlt'at th¢· fnt.speci~ ~~e {ails to ~w the class of de:ath- efigih1e- defendants. Moreover., the fact that any capital defendant is found iiDt to be a, futu;re ~ge, Is· evi~ce ~.the 4~~on i.s based on c~pri·ce ~'th~·than reason.. In Cargill's case, the fa:ct that this dubious determiilation had to be mad~ b~yon4 ·~ r~~o~ble 4.o~bt before t,he ·jW)' was .p;re$~~t~ witb, ~~- ~~ti~tion. special issue llmited the Jury's. -ability to give full consideration to eVidence that might serve as. a b~l.s for-~ se,ntence less than cleatb. See tennard v. iJretke, 542 150 163 • • U.S. 274, 278 ("I~ 'is· not; ~~gb ~roply to 11llow ~e 4efe~d~t. to present Illitigating evidence to the sen~ncei. the serttencer mQ;S.t also be able tO c:oMder and _give; effeCt to that evidence in imposUig the sentence."). As a result, C.argil1~s d~ sentence w~ \ln]Q;wfull)' ~d unconsti~tional)y in1.p0Sed in viol_ation of her applicable state and federal Constitutional. rightS, and therefore·m~ be revet:Sed. CLAIM 'lWEi.VE CARGILL'S RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH, EliG:iiTB, .ANJ) FOURTEENTH .MIENDMtNTS TO THE UNlTEJ) STATI;_S Cc)NS1JTtrtiON WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT WAs PROHIBITED FROM INSTRU~G THE JURY TIJAT A. ·voTE BY ONE·JVROR WOVIJ) ~SUL.T IN .A LIFt S~NCE Diitlng the pWiisrunetit phase deHberatlons of catg~Il's trial, the jmy foreman . . .. sent . out. a. QO. ··· te ihdlcati . .... ' .. 118 . ... the · that. · --. was . J~ . ui:l@le · ee on . .. ' to ~- ' first . 1he '. ,. s~ iSsue and.fuqliiring-as to what thejury's options were at that pc)fut. the_ Court responded, consi'stent with the texas "10•12 Rule/i that th~ j'Uiy s.Aolitcj contin1,le to delibera~. AfWr further deli~on.s-, the jury u,l~hn~ly se.n.t~.:ec;l Cargill to d~. Und~ Texas law-; up to thre.e spec_ial i_ssues ~ subn)i~ t9 the jury d~ t_b.~ ser,teg¢i.:ng p~e of a C$pi~al ~~-~=' (l) :whetb~r mere is a prol).ability tb;at the defendant co:nsti.tutes a contiiluing threat to soeiety' [hetelnafter ..first..s~_ial iS.S~,l; (~) wh:e,ti:J.~ ~e· ~fejidai_lt actually c~us~, in~~d.e4, or· at:ttj~ip~ $e d~ of the d'*~c;l (h~i.na.6er· ''p~ ~n,tpl_icity· speci_al jS$u~'-~]; 0) ~d whether, cc;nslcteriftg all the: ev1dence, there: are sufficient mitigatln-g Circ.ums:tanCes tO wmtaiit.a sentence of iife· imprisonment Without paroie (hereinafter- "mi~gating CircumStances sp«i~ iSsl.J,e"l. Tex. Cod_e Crlm. Proc. art. 31•.071, § 2(b)(l)-(i)~ (e)( 1). The court mUst seilte,nce ·a defet:t~~ to deatl:t if th~ Jury ~~t_rul~ly ~swers "Yes~ to th
164 • • FilrtAennote, th~ju:ry must be inst;tv,c.t.¢d as to tb~~ ~jmity ~r:tt;;• Tex. Code Cri.m. Pro:~~ art. 37.0.7~, § 2.(d)(2), (f)(2). By CQJJ~ i:f th~ jury ~wers "No;' to either of the firSt tWo ~ial issues· or a "YeS' to th_e tlti.~ ·special i.~~; tl:l~ the ~11;11 t:n\J,St sent~ce the defendant to life 'Imprisonment Wjtbotn parole. T~·: Co4e Cr:im- P.r.®.. art. 37.071, § 2(g). ~e answers n~ o.ot be ~~.o~~; ii:tS:tea~ the jury ~ay f}_nd against the first special issue or party C:Otttplicity ot in /at?o.r of ntifj~ti,ng- c_imm.ts~~~.s· sQ lol)g ~ ten or mere j'urors agree. Tex.. Code Crim. Proc.. art 37.0.7i, .§ ~4)(2), (f)(2). In addiU:o~ to these ci~~~, the cowt ~SQ rn:u.~ ~t~~- tP,e· defendant to life imprisafiinem·Withou:t parole ifotbe jury is ~-l~ t9 8Jl$Wei' any of the special i.SS\les cons.ister)t witb these m.t.iclelines. T~. Co4e Crim! PI'!JC .. art. 37.071, § 2(g). Under T~ law; howey~; th~ jury ca,mtQt ~ infonned c;>f Ute consequenc_es should 'lt tail to ll(lSwer ~ spec.ia.l l~u,e·: ·'111e court, the attorney ~ting the stat~, the ®,f~~ Qt tb~ ·4efeJtdAA~'s co~· ~~ not mform a juror or a prosp«.tive j~r o( the effect of ~ ~qre of ~ j~. to agree an [the spe~i.~.l] j~~-·-~ T~i CQ 54 Tec~ically,. thi$ part of seetion 2(aXI) addreSses itself to the ·~is·s_ues sulmtined oo.d~ S1J.psectj_c;m (c;) or (e)/' Te'-':· Cod~ Crim.· Proc. ;ut_. -37.071, § 2(a)(l). While the initigatilig ciltums:tance$ ~-ial iss~e is subinjtle(j to ¢_eju'ry p~t to sub~etion (e), no $'pecial isaue i:s s~bmitted ~o the jUr)' pu;rs~an~ to S\l_bsectiog (c); lJ)_~ead, th~ sub~~Qn, cQncems the burden of proof borne by the. State With respect to the future dangerousness and party compliCity spetial issues, vu., the ·~i.~~~[s] ~hm.itt~d U1¥/#r S~!hs.ec#on (b)/" fd a~ art. 37.~071, § 2(c) (emphaSi.s added)f Thus, ~Y a plain reading of the statute there is no ptohlbltiort to disclose to the jOry c;he effect of a. (~lure to agree on the first tWo sp~ial i'ssues. 152 165 • .e d~rived Cargill ofa fall' stmt~.ci.ng· trial Md Olereby viol,ated h~· tigl:lts l)n4er Ule Eh~~Ut an.d FoUrteenth AmeildDients. J\. Tb~ C•rgiliJaey was Initiaily Unable t~Agree on the Fi"tS~U.I &s:~.e Followrog eight. ~ys of P~.~ent phase te·stimony, tbe CatgiU jury· reUred for deli~ti in.sWctions an4 that dte jury should continue tp d~llb~~te. (69 RR at 115.) At that ~int defen:s.e' co.~l re-t,Jrged \ts ~tria}. motjeJJ, ·~l;ta(ie.nglpg the conStitutionality of the 10-12 Rule.. Moreover; c.ounsel requested the; folloWing in~ctjrin ~m ~e Co'!,Jlt::' Under th.e law applicable to thi.s c:ase, you are· itl.$ti'U~ that'if the jury i.s not able tQ answer a Specill:i I.ssue; t;l:t~ the jury f~rem&.Q shail refrain from ansWering that Speeial Issue and the Co.urt will assess a life sentence with.ou.t parole i!l me event that ~ Sped~ (ssue isn't an.sweted by the jliry foreman. (69 RR at 116.) The ·state argued that while 'it un.d~ds· wh.at cour,seJ is requesti.ng, s'udi- ail mstn.J,ctiOi.t 1.53 166 • • s~ Tbe S:Qpreme: C9~.rt :U:I:IS ~~~.li--~ted Jl_l.ry l.~tru~ons that Place BD Undue Bu·rdeli OD the s_,iatenc~.r a.to.re Fil)d~\lg ~tigatiog Circum:staa«s Twa Supre~e CoUrt cases-Mills- v. Maryliind, 486 U.S. 361 (198:8), and McKoy v. North CflJ"'lina, 494 U.S ..433 (I990H~d for tbe proposition that a capital s¢rit:encmg scbe,m¢ ~9t ~dli.ly bu:rc:ten a sentencer before he finds the presence Qf~•ni.~tig~g ~~~e.. In Mills.. the Court c.onsidered a capiW. se_nt~~i,ng scheme that reqUired juror:s to ~m_ously ~e· oo. initigating faetOts. The Matyiand sCheme consiste:d C)f ~ verd.lct fQJ11:1 i~ three s~cdons: In Section ., the jury was asked Wh¢dter 1~ foliild WJ.afiin'lo'u$1y _on~ ox: .i,nOre aggravating factorS (out of' ten ~~~~ng (Q..c:tors li.~~4), Mi.l~, 486 u._s. ~t 385;..86~ In Section Ii. the jury ·was asked. Whether it found tlna.Iliin,ously- Qne or D;Jore ~_tigatin:g factors~. id. at 386-8.8;· i,n S~o.Q I:Q, ~e jl,U)' was asked _ to balan9e the aggravating factor(s) it folDld against the niitigatiilg fac.itor(s) it fo1,lllcJ, i4 a~ 388-89. . To~~ w Seetion II, the jt.try bad ~ fil.t4 ~9~ly one or more .aggravating it no~ a life faetpts; s~m1~ce wauJ4 result. Jd- at 386.-88. To proceed to Section nt upon completing Se·ctiOI1 ij, the j\IJ')' b.~~ t9 t.U!d ~jrnol.lsly on.e or more mitigating (actors; if I)Ot, ad~ ~~~e woul.c;l ~$l)_lt l(i. a~ 389. Because-a reasonable juror e.owd have in~~ fbej~~ti()n Md ac;comp~ying verdict fonn as requiring una:nimous _agreement respecting each mitigating circumstartce9 the M#ls Court'·adjudged this s:cheme unc~nstit"Utioruil.. 14 at 184 (~Under our cases, t.b.~ seJ;l~~cer· m:ust be permi¢.00 t_o consider ~IJ m:#iga~g evidence. the possi~llity that a singl~ juror cc;ruld block ~ch con~i<,i~tjQn,, an~ col)~\,l~~y r~q~jre the j~ to impose the death penalty, is one w~ ~_l;lo~ ri.s~''). lncieed, the Maryland scheme bore the ad.d.ition~l ri$lc. th~t, .even i.f all twelve jWQrs· ~lieved some mi~ipt_ipg <;ircums~~e 15.4 167 •• • ~xiSt~, the jury would be prev.eu~d from ~g ~tfeci tQ &l')Y $~~11 circl,Ims~.ce llP.l~~s tl1c:y Ulia.Iiimously agreed on which cifc(Uilstance(s) eXI~Q. In McKoy, the Court ilkewlse confronted a sentencing .scheme that unduly" bqr.dened the )'ucy's abUitr to rea¢h a life . sen~ce. Th~ Nortb C~!iml set:t~~ing scl;l~I;rte-:--tfiOre ~o than tlie Maryland one at issue In Mills-explicitly reqtiir.ed the jWY tp find unammously the p~~ ·of a i:i:ihig~~g fa.ctm. 1.4. at 43~. l)lls l,(napi!;njty ~lljre.~ent prevent[ed] the jury &om c6nsideiiilg, ih deciding whethe.r t(.) impose the death penaltY1 ilriy mitigating factOr that the Ju::ty does ilot un.~mbn:QU$ly find~" ~U$ d-id the $tllte Violate the Eigbt;b -~ FQQrt~Jh Amendments "by preventing the sentenCe~" from considering all mitigating evid~ce.;' id. C. 'l'esas's i0-12 Seateadag &heme Imp-airs the Albffity of a Majority of JurQn w~~-~- a Life ~a_t~nce. Incons~t With Mi#s- 3I)d }4cKtl)', te~~'s -~o.. i2 Rule petmits a minori~y o.fa_c~i~.j~ ~P impe_nni~sibly sway meve_rd.ict tow~ ~·~I:l~9e:ofde~. It iS perfectly within the realm of _pOssibility that each ofcatgill's· twelve jl.U'Ors would l)•ve; -a~ some-. point in the pen_altj' phase deilberations, vo~ far a lite· sentence, but th~ a. d~ath sentence would have reslilted by operation Of the lQ-12 R"¢e. Consid~r the folloWing hypothetic·aH i~ I through 5 ·imtially woUld answer "No'' to the futlire dangerousness special 'issue but, fearing a mistrial, they change the~ vQt.e$· ~ "'! ~s," w})ile Jurors 6 ~~f#.t 10 n,j.t:i~Mly '!Voulc;l ~-s~ "'Y~" to the mitlgatillg circUinstances Special tsslie but.. also fearing a mistrial, they change their votes to ..No.',-; At each stage of the deliberations, both lllinorities-of•five are well short of t;h~ ten votes r:aeeded to ~ch a ljfe sentence, y~ togeth~ th ISS 168 • • ~~ .js~ t~lve vo:t~.s f~ d~ or t~ or n,.ore votes .for Ilfe--but.this· suppesition is belied bY ample eVid~ collected by ~e Cap~ Jw.y Proj~~ ~ i~ in~iews With capital jurors. AI!i ~ in a 2.003 ~cl_e by that PrOject'$ prjncipaJ, ~l)vest,il¢or, 66% efinterviewed Te~ capitai jUro.x:s inCQ~ctly thoUght that they had to ~ convinced beyood a reasonable dou~ OIJ fi1.1dings ·of m-~~on·; 73% iilcorredl)' a!slQ.ned that ·any findings on mitigati()n had t9 be u:nMiti\o~; and 68% incorrectly believed that. death w~ required iftbe 4~fenclan~ was detenniped t9 be dangerous in the future--the blghe$tlevei of m~~4ing among the fourteen jurisd.ictjon,s surveye4 b)' tbe C~iW ~~ Pt"Qject Wi.lliam J. Bowel'S & Wanda i:>. Foglia,. Stl_Il $i1igu)arly 4go~i;ing: Law's Failure to Purge Arhitrtirine.3S ..frol!l Capital ~g, 39 C~. L. B~J.,.. 51, 68; 71, 12•73 (2003). that Cargill's jurors woul4 presume ~ Q.)i_stli_al upog. t.heir failure to agree at ~enten.d.Pg ;;.s tl9~ n_terel·y think® I~, jt i;~ pf'()bqble. the T~ sentencing scheme, by hiding from the jW)' t}le COil$qUe.,c~·for falllng shOrt often and twelve, gives rise-to the very riSk which .aiiiii'iated ·the Court 'in MUla and McKoy. The 10-12. Rule, tb.$1. serve.$ as· an ·impediment m even a majority of jurors Who desire a life s« 1:56 169 • • A featUre of American jtirisprudence---One broadly underst®d by the publiH3 that wh~·l:\j\lo/ l$ ~Jllet9 ~ ~ l)ii_s1;ri_~ t;n~y ~ decl~ ~a new trial held.. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U..S.~ 497, :509 (1978); .Ddwn_um v. ~nited $1/#es, 372 U.S:~ 734, 736 (1963). BecaJJS.e this option is both cos~y a:4cl cUinbets()me, the law expects tha,t jlli'Qrs Will ent~ intp their d.elibem.P.Q.n.s ~:ble to be s"Wayed In their opmiom. Allen v. Un'l.ted Suites-, 164 U.S~. 492,501 (1896);, A ~nabl.ejuror· snowd f¢el tlW weigh~ Qf tbe ~tN,ct,io~ (rpm, 1;be tri~ court and, consl.stent With the1r- ~nv1ctions, attempt to avoid an impasse. In a cap~ cas~, the shadow of a ~l_stri$J un~ly looms iarger. Jurors cluuiOt help but b.e aware of tho~ cases' more involved proce~. hnprov·ed safegUards,. and greater expense. They experience first-hand the c:are ~en by the Sta~ @rid the d~fen,se to .s~lect froQ:L the venire twelve jurors S\liW)le for the high .stakes of a eapital triaL They are told to eXpec:t-and they usually sit thrQ~~ long tti_al Wi~ copio4S ~e\ill~ of evidence &rJ.4 lepgthy testhno~y from lay and expert Witnesses. alike. They are led to believe that dis>iiShed and d.oubtiessly· hi'gh•priced eXperts from a wide range of disciplines are. not only aV.~lQ.Ple to testicy bQl.~levantto Ute mal's o~t&;Qnte_~ In this setting a. re·a:sonable juror WoUld be loath to fo.t:ee a niiStrial, especia,ily ·at th.~t $ge· of the proceedings when the defendant's cwpab1lity already ~.as ~t:J:l W)&JlimoU;S~y ~d t()~ Bt:tt. ~H~ ~~ guilVi~o~_ce pl}ase of a capiU;U trial ~ks the pi.J.~lic's understanding of the criniinal law.;.;...;.wz,, acquittals a:nd c·on.Victions must be unanimoUS-the peiWty phase does not. Moreover, after bein~ informed by th¢ court that. ten (not twelve) vot~ ~e necessary to answer-the special iss:ues.·in.a way that favors a life senten~, it wo.uld be passingly strange for a juror· to oonclude that feWe't than ten .such votes Would achieve. the very same result. T~x~'s .sep~ci,ng scb~m~ l)ot on,ly d~tii.¢.s j~_rs i,nfo~~n·a.pou~ the effect of thei_r yot~ bu~-. by Qnjissi()n, iw.i~s them to assu~e that the consequer:tce 157 170 •• • for ~.lure ~(I ·~. agtee)J)ei;t~ p~u~t ~0 ~e 10,.12 RUle i~ ~ ~S~)' mi.stri.~, regardless of any dne jun)r's beliefthat a life ~n~ce is appropti.ate.. For such ~ juror nr;,t t9 l~r liil;d~ tJt_j_s mil$.3pp~hcm.ion demands a counter-intUition both unreQ~m.able. ~ nQWb,~ el$e. ~.$WJJ~d ~n th~ l~w. Tl:J.U$, r~ther than operate 3S an incentive to reach a verdict 'in ·a c.apita.l cas.~ the 10-ll ~e functions as an o~id:e iAfl.u~ce·~ ~ Juror,s vot~·for mercy; · E. CoadusloD For· th,e re.as:o~ sta~ed above, the T¢xas d~ p~cy .sche.me Viol.ates the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of' the United· States Constitution. Accorqin.gly, Cargill's death sentence was lmpetmlssi.bly imposed and should be vac!}te:d. CLAIM THIRTEEN CARGILL'$llEAi11 StN'n'N~E IS 1}NCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT WAS ASSJG~ BASED ()N ~'S .ARBITRARY SYSTEM OF ADMINISTERfflG THE DE!\Til P~~A:LTV Within Texas's crlnllnal justice· syst~m, p;rosecutoi:s· e;~t~i~ CQi)sider.a:ble discretion. ~Y as a c'Onsequ.ence of this di~Qn, a snJ..aU m.inority ofT~~'s counties are respomible fot an. overwhelnUrig majority ofthe. death sent¢n~ ~ have b~ a.ss~4 ln the p~ thirty-seven ye~. In addition to this geograpbic c#~ty-a d.l~~ty ~t cm;m9~ be exp'l$ed merely~ reference to COUJlty popwations-Te~'s SySteni of adlilihistering the death pellalty also refletts dl:sparities based en race and ethn:icity. thus, whereas sentences of death ate p:erfQrc'e re·serv¢.d OJ:lly for·~he mpst e~giQU:S Qff~, ip. TeXa$ mls determi.r;ta~i 171 • • Texu ·and Uni~ S~ws Ccmsti~:ti9~, just ~ it also violates texas statUtOry law ~~ Uri.ited SU\t_es Sup~me Co\#1 ~ fe~a:s: ~- l~w. Accordin~y., C~U.'s .s~~t~ce shouid b:e reversed. A. _Supr~~e Cou_rt :Precedent M:_a-ndates That. th¢ Death Penalty Not Be: Ap-plied Arbimarily C)ier forty years. ago, the Supreme· Comt'.brletly s~n4e4 im-po~i~o;r:t of-tf:te d.eath penalty tlitOUghout.the United :States. &tt Fiir!n.cm'v. Geotgi_t;z, 40~ u.s~.2-~8, 239 (1972) (per c~). FQUf y@l'S later, the Couit, yaHcl:at.ed n~w)y~~ilcted capital p....-mshment statUtes whiCh include:d safeguards· ~ ~~ '~~i~~-s $.:4 caprice" that had animated the Court mFUl?!lf,lil. Gre8$ v. Geotgi!J;.4:28 U.S. 153, 189 .(1976) (plurality opirli:on) ("FtQ'!!I.Wl ~~~ ~ wh..ere ~-i~~on i_s afforded :a sentencing bodY on a m~er-.sp ~vr; @·the d.~t~~tion of whether a b.urnan.life should be W, 1-59 172 • • In the mtervenfug decades~ the Supteme Coun has continued to de811iin~ capjtal ~c;ii)g ~emes tQ d~jp.~ ·wfl~ther tbey .ll.l~1"4-d~ ~~ble saf~ to prevent the arbitracy ass.ignment Qf deatb s.ent~n~~ &e~ e.g.·; CaJifomJ4 V; Brown., 479 U.S. 538, SAl (I9S7);- M#(s. l/; Marylan4, 4$6 tJ..S.~ 361, 3.74 (1988).. At the $8Ule tjin·~, the' CCJUI1 fla.s rejected m_an~~ sm.~_ciog d~.a~OJl:S 1n capital cases· because "the f\n:ldamcmtal ~pect for h~~ity un4¢rlying $~ ij_i$htll N:nendment req~ conslc;l~.nJ.tion of Ul~ clt.~ct~· ~d re.c.ord of the mdivi_dl,lal offender and the circumstances of the particular offense." Woodson v. North Carolina, 4:2a u~sf 280, 304 (1976) (internal ~itations omitted}; su iilso.Penrjl v. Lyna~gh, 492 U.S. 302, 805 (1989) (Pertry I) ("Edding.t [:v~ 0.kl~ho.1!l!l, 4.55 U$. 104 (1982),] mak~ cle_ar· that it i_s not enou:gh simply 'to allow the defendant to presen~ rniti~ e;v~clence to th~ sen~cer; The s~~~er must alSo be •ble to co_nsid~ 81ld giye effect to that eVi~~l:l~ in i~sfug· se.nt~c:e.. fl_itchc~t ~· ~gger-. [481 U.-S. 393 (1987)],,;). Far- from being conmdlctory, tl:ie sititwtan.eou:s pursu:it of th.* objecnves· en:s:ures that ~ i$ a.. penalty neithe;r wanton nor freakish. . ... .. . while And . . . .. p·rocedlinii certain . . . tefoi'InS-bi:fi.Xrcated . . .- cap·ita.l trials at ngrrowi:gg Qf ~~tb-eljgible crime_s, ~p~llate r.ev1ew fo:r sen~n4;ing propo.rtio~O~!Je b) pass co_nstitutioo~ Q.t~, o~ers ~ve proven th~~lves il:t.a4equate ~o the·~ of'~m_iQ.im,iz[ingl tbe ri_$1( of wbolly -~itrary and capri_ci()~ ~oQ.." ·Gregg-, 428 u~s. at 189 .. Compare Jurelc, 428 u~s. at 275 (approving Texas's guided-di5¢r¢tjon .s~tut¢), wi!h Pe_ilry 1, 49.2 U.S. ~ .3-:28 (disapproving same); comft!ue Gregg, 428 U.S. at 189 (approving Georgia's guided-discretion sta~te), with G()(}frey v. Geor.gia~ 446 tJ..S~ 420, 43Z-33 0980) (plurality opinh:m) (disapprovj11g ·same).~ In a m.rtshell, then, c_apltal punishment schemes m·ust have "objective standards to ~de, regularize·, and· make rationally· reviewab1e the process for injposiilg a sentence of death-." Woodson; 428 U$~ at 303. When th~ s~l)~mes 160 173 • • l~k ~<;1;1 s~~_s,- or wh~n such standards fail in their- appiication, ot when ~-[t]-.here is no pnnd" . pled. vi · · ·to di ~-"""''C._ . ay Qhfta-nish [a] . case, .. . which · in . death ... the · · alty . .. . per:t. - was Imposed, from the ·many cases in which it was not,'' it ¢annot b·e m:aintalned tba~ tb.e ih)poshiOI) Qf a death sentence was 66based on reason rather than caprice ot emotion.~· Godfrey, 446 u.S. at 433. !I~ T~~'s l)ea_t_b p~._at~ Sche~e Is t,Jnccn,l_~ti~tion~i The Supreme:C()urt Upheld Texas~s death penalty·~nne inJ1ire_l(v.. T~as in 1976, h.~v41g c;:~nc.:l.~4e4· ~t th~ ~'s bi~~on of th~ gtilltrmno~ce .an~ penalty pba:ses and rnurowiJ;tg of d~aUl.,eJj~ble crime$ ~vi4e.cl 1,1 m.~ ~o . .. evenhanded · ote. the prom . ...... J rational and consistent imposl'tiort of death . . . ' . . . . . senten~ . . .. t.m4~ l.a:w:" Jf!re.k; 42_8·(J.S. $. 276. This j~$Illen~ has g.ot withstood the ~y of later- cases. See, e;g., Penry I, 492. U.S. at 302- (mvalidating Texa5's statute fOr' ~~g ~o htstru~ juries that th~y Ill3Y cor;Wder mitigating evidence)~ Penry v. JQ.brzs.on, 532 U.S. 78:2-. 782 (20 11) (Penry fl) (invalidating Texas·'·s StWlfm'),~n~ ~ctj_® em gjjgg~~on for f~li_fi$ to ptoyid~ th~ j~ wi~ a ·su:fiicie)l~ m~echanism to c Death Row, http·s;//www .t~cl.s~e..tx..:u~cJeadl_I'Owldr.:.._offend.~_on_dr. .hunl 0~ ss $i_milarly disparilte StatiStics are expected fot 2013 arid :io 14. As of this filing, however, crime statiStics for 2013 have not yet been publi~ed:• 161 174 • • visi~d Aug.- l~-. 2014).~ The· number of death sentences asses·sed thrOUghout ~ sU¢e b.~ d~clm.e4. sigg,i_fic~tly in the past three deca.d~s_. ~e Tex~ Dep;t 'C~1_i_ii). JUst., Offenders on De4th Row, id. . Within these ·st,atistic~. bowev~, one fl.n4s ~ work factors that have no place in the "evenhanded, rational, and consistent iritp:ositio~ of death." Jurek; 428 U.S. ~ 276~ 1. Geog~pJ!y Since 1976, 1,069 d~en~have.been ~n~cmced tQ d~$l.n Tex.as~ Te~. Dep't .Crlm. JuStice; Total NW!I.her of Ojf~a $-tm~c'el/ tiJ l)eath .from Each County, http://wWV.V.tdcJ.state~~.us/death_rpw/dr_c~nmty_®nvictior;t._ offen4ers~tllll 0~ vilJlte4 1\lJg. l~, 2014).. ColJectively, less than half of Texas's 25.4 countieS account for these· 1,069 sentences. /d. (lisful$ ll9 Texas c®J]ti~). Few· counties:--=-Harrls, Dallas, Bexar, and Ta.rtant-ilteount fot over SO% of these defen~, as well-~ for 48% Qfth~ w.h9 b~e b~ exc=c~ Te.~:~ Pep't.Cr:im.:; Justice, Coio#y ofCo.nVictiQnfor ~ecU/_ed Offend.ers, btq>s:l/~:td~J . stat~. :f.Jic·.~.s/ death_row/dr.,..C9wny_cQI.IVlction_ex~~t~LhtmJ (last visited Aug-. l2, 2014) (249 out of515).. In the pasttliirty-s.even years. 216 ofTexas~s 254 counties (SS%)have sentenced someone to death tlu'ee tUnes or less, ot not at all. tex.. Dep't Crim.. J!,lSti~. Totp} N7.!.'f!lbe.r qf Ojf~r~ S~~erzc.~t! to Deat.b fror.n Epqh Cowr_ty; bttp:i/Ww.W.tdcj._Stat¢~tx:~s/d~.....row/~_~Wtiber.:.:_ser.i:ter_ice4_d~th_couri~,Ptr:D,l (last viSited Aug. 12, 2014) · 56 No d<'"a,th rQw i~a~~ was botb t;_on~d¢t~ and e.xecu~ed in 201.2:~ See T~. Dep't Crim. JUst.-, Executed Offenders, httpst//www.tdcj.state.tX.usldeath.....row/dr__ executed"_pftenders.httnl (last viSited Apr•. 30; 2014). ~ addition, no dea:tb row i_hroa.te·was b:oth convicted and removed fi'Qm death row- ir). 2012. ~e T~x. Dep't Crim. Just.., Of!enders No Longer on Death Row, https://www.tdcj .state.titi.S/death_row/dr_offen:ders._no_longer_on_,dr.html (last visited Aug. 12, 2014). 175 • • Texas is not aione in th1s pheiu.>menon. MUltiple stildie·s cOilducted thro\lgho~ Ul# ¢oli)'Ur,y b~ve ider;ttitied ~.-SJ~te geo~phi.c 4is:cre.p~~ies. ~ tl,.~ imp.osition ofthe death penalty~s' See, e.g., Jt,J.)es Eps.tej.n, De41h-Wt;~rt.h.f!zes.s ~TMI Proset:iittJrlpl Discretion zn CQpitiil Case Chl;zrging, i 9 'TEMpLE PoL. & Cjy. Rrs. . L. REv. 389 (2010) (discussing studies· in AriZona, MiSWuri, Pennsylv;mj~ ~d South Caroiina); Adam. Gershowitz, Statewide Capittil Ptinishm~,.:· The Cas.e F_9r E.lln#nati~g CQwz.tj'es • ~(Jle ir.z (b_e. ~(l!h Pe~a/ty; b~p://wQrks~bepress.com/ adam_gel'ShoWit21.S (i009). In one, stu.dy, the· researcb~ (o\md ~, qv~r a. four,.. year petiQ definition to be· eiigib~e for the death penalur ~ K~.1:1~ B~~ et aJ., Place Ma.tten Empirical S.IJ#.!;Y of f'ros~C'I#ori¢./)ec.ision-i-Making in Death"' fM.tm): A1-1 f..Ilgible C~a, 5) ~ L. ~v . .305', .3()9...11 (2009). However; only ~-% Qf thos¢· cases occaSioned a death penaltY trial. a result. prosecutors Id. at 309. As thrOughOUt the state m.~e the d~Sion no~ wseek ~th in 9S% of ®aUt-eligible cases. Id. ThiS cfi5crerlon was not spread evenly, however, as prosecutors· ·in the City of St. Lows an,d J~ori, Co\IJ:lt)' (w~te K@s~ ·City .i$. lo~ed) charged capital ~s far less frequently (6.5%) than proseCutors·. in the rest of the s.tate (20%)." ld. at:344. 57 these obserVations. are, of course; di'Stinct from the inter-state geographic dfsqepancies in the 'i.inpqs.iticm of" tbe d~~ pet:~al~; $ee Jeffl'ey Kj_rchme.i~; Aggra,ating and Mitigating Factors-.: The Para~x of Today·~ A_tbitrary dild Mand!;z!c)ry Ct;ipit.alPUii.ishfrz~t Schtmt.e, 6 WM. & MARY BILL RTS~ J. 345,.386-87 ( 1998) ("Beca-use each Jurisdiction creates it.S own death penalty statUte, each. s~.e is Ullique. The res:u:l~ i:s that.,.,..-not ~I)Jy d·o~ pw;iisbme.P.t diff~ bet;wee.Q de.ath p:elUI,lt;.yj\llisdictions and jUrisdictipru; witboO,t ~he d~a~ p~rtalty........-5jgn.i.ti~~l discreP.ancie.s e.~st amol)g ~~ deaUl penal~y jtJri.sdicd~ns. ").. ·· · ·· 58 A commission created tO examine the fairness of New .Jers~y's. capital puniSluil.ent system l_ikewi~e noted its co.nce~ regarding ~e e.xlste.nce Qf 163 176 • • 1%) Jure.bmd in Gregg, the Supreme Court considered ~hethet imp.etmissible ar;bjtrariness ~ c.apiW sen~~cing re.$Ulted .fro~ prosecutollial discretion to cboose those ca.ses in Whi~ a death sentene:e would be sought.. Gregg, 42.8 u.s-. $t 199; J:wek, 428 t; . s. ~t 274. The· Caurt determined tha:t this decision-making served to remove defendants frOm the fisk of death and did not viola.te the u~s~ C~U.~dcm; provided the "deciSion toimpose (a death sentence was] guided by standards .so that the semenci,ng ~thori~ wowd fo·cus on the particularized circulnstances of the crime and the defendant." Gregg, 428 U.S. at 199. Justiee WIUW, in his conc~ce, Q.9te4 th• the decision of prosecutors woUld likely reflect that of juries and be rooted 1n the .seriousness oftb:e offen5e: Absent facts tO the colltl"3iY, it cannot be assumed that pro~utors wj.ll be ID.O~Va~e 1976 dea~-row ~es origina~ed~ave. ba4 ~ many g~i.noU$ diJn.e.s wi~ U1eir geo~phjcal limi~ ~ h,1,lv~ Tex~·'s 250 rem:ail;ling countjes. Far inore likely, factors s:Uch as 'ideology.·, experien.c¢ Htigatilig cap)~ cases, ~ re$0Urce availability exert. significant. irifl'uence on ptasectitOrs·; deCisions to .seek the death v~~l»:I.iw aiJJQQg co:unties in t.~.e appll~tjon of the death penaity.." NJ.• Death Penaity StUdy Comm., New Jersey Death Penalty Commission Report 43 (2007), qya#a/Jle a.t http://www.njleg.state.nj'.us/ committees/dp~_fina:I.pd.f. 164 177 • • ~enalty. See Gershowit:Z; supra ~ 11-1'5 (noting seve.~ ihst.an~e$· in whi~b. p~c~QrS· h"ve declined io pursue· the death penalty based oil resource )i:mitaQOQS ) •. The influ_enc;e=ofth~e factp_rs within texa,s-'s cap_i~ punl.s.hment sy.st.em ba.· undennined the Supreme Court'~ ~~.n.$, voiced in Jurek, th~~ th(s $)'St~ wo_uld b¢ ail ,·'eveilhanded, rational, and ®nsistent" one. Jurek, -428 U$. at 276. ntirtea:t years -a~ Jwe~., tJ:le Court began t9 ~~gri_i2:e tbe etror ili jts ~pti_o_tl that Texa:s'·s .~m would, in practi~, &ll$Wertbe ·sev.~l CQil~ eJJ;~~d by ~ majority of the justi~ in Purma;_,. Co;;_;pare Jurek; 42:8 U.S. at. 2,72 (expressing Cc;Jnfidence that the Tex.~!$ Co~ of c~~_l Appe~s wo:uld "interpr~ [the statUtory special issue] so as to allow a defendant to br1ng to the jl.try"s· att~tion wh~lever n:ti~igaWl.g circ~ces he may be able to Show''>.~ with Penry- I, 492 u._s_. at 3 I 8 (fin4ing inaci~ ~;~Pd tbere.(Qre uncon~~cm~ the ,~~t,Qry spe_~_i~ iS.s1,1~)_. l'h~ geographic d)sparitj~ in the imp.Qsj~on Q(the·death ~nalty mTe~ offer eqw.tlly ~elling $I'QWJfJs to ~b~4on the belief that ~u~prial diScteti9n will produce a consistent applieanc;m of'the law. ~:· ~ee geography, Studies- continue to show that race is a motivating In addition to factor behind jury verdicts in capital cases. See; e.g., David B.aldus, et al., Rac.e q.,_4 Propo.T!fo.1Jl4.ity Since McCles~ey v. ~~p (1987)~· Di./lere1JI Actl)rs -..y~th Mixed Strategies ofbenial and Avoidanct. 39 COLUM.• HuM:. Rrs. L. ~V.. 143 (2007); Isaac Unah, Choosing those- who Wili Die: The Effect of Race, Gender, qn# !4w (n ProseCUforial DeciSion to Seek the Death Penalty in Durham County; North Carolina, 15.MICH. J. RACE & L. 135 (200'9) (finding tha.l prqse¢.;J~or5· were more likely to piirsue capital cases for white Victims than black victims). On'e swdy speeific to Texas examm«t ~e:influen:ce of race io H.ams Coun~ capital ca,ses UQm 1994 t~ 1999. Sco~ Pblnips, Ra.c.ial Disparifies in (he Capital 165' 17_8_ • • ofCapita.l Punishment, 45 Hous. L. REV. 807 (20.08). Using Statistical teclinlques . fo:r PQ · tential to control confuunders59 the stUd showed that ~black defendants . . .. ' .. . y .. .. .. . .. . . who coiil111itted crim:es leu like~y to lead to a de,atb. trial ~ded to face a capital m.& 17Jdre ~~y Ulan their white and fftspanic counterparts." AM. BAR Ass 'N, . · THE TExAs CAPITAL. PuNisHMENT AssESSMENT REPORT (2013) (citing Phillips, 45 Hous. t.. REv. at 830). A defendant also faced inCreased odds of receiving a death sentence if he was bla4 t,h~ if he was Wb.i~ or Hispan.lc; PJ:I{IJips, 45 l;lous. L.. REv. at 834. the stUdy also confirmed that, in H.atris County within: the eight-year ~00, th~ col'lvi~ of l.d:I.Ji.ng a ~hite Vic~ were inore· likely te receive a. death .sentence than those c·onvicted Qfkilimg a black victlm.. /d. A subseqtJen~ study conducted largely the same analysis for the penod · · · • ·· . iami b egmrung .. $1')' 1' 2001' and . endin .. g Fe'-"·"'._., VA~i/ IS 2008. , Scott p·.'nHii_ps, . . .. Contiiiued Racial Disparities in t~ Capital. of Capilli/ PUnishment: the Roa.e~tthal ~TQ., SO Ho:us.• L.. REv. U 1., 134 (2012). While the race of the def'endarit.no longer appeared to influence the prosecution's charging decisions and. the jt,Iries' ~tencing decisions, the race' of the victim still proved to b:e a controlling factor.. Id at 148.. Sp:ecificaUy, thi.s ~dy foUnd ~·"the d.~ penalty was impo~d on behalf of white victimS at more than twice the rate one woUld expett if the system w~ bl4ld to r~ ·~d ··. • . on behalf of white female victims at. mote than five times tlte ~e one would ~~pect if\tle syst.~ were bl.iJl.d ~o ~ce @~ ge.J)4er;., 14 ~ 150. In a third study-one that Used a controfled experiment tO examine the S\.l~tle influ~ce of~e c>Pjl,l_ror 4ec~$ion-maki~ers ~phe Univetsizy of Califomi·a at B.erkeley found that members of a random sample of276 adults were ~ 9 P-ot~t:i~ co:n.fo®4ers jt~ch.u:J~
179 • • moN· 4lclined, after reViewing. a file stiifuiiary of a triple-mmdet case and bei11g told tllat tbe m:~lmum punishmert~ w~ d.ea~, to fln4 •. d~fen~ ~Jty b~e4 on th~ eVideilce provided if the defendant had a name traditiC)nally ass®iated with m.it:~Qri#e$ (e.g:·. ~el, L.~ar:, Terrell) tll.~ i.f he had a ~ore. race-neutral name (e..g., Ancitew, Frank, :Pe~~). Gl@Se;r, e~ aj_•., Possibility of Death Sentence Has Diverge.nt Effect on Verdictsfor Black and White Defendants 5-6 (l'Wle.24,.2009), available at http;J/p~etS. .s.s.rn.co·wsol3/papets:.cnn'i.ab~ctjd=J 4:28943. By contrast, other members of that same random .sample were no mote likely, after reviewing that s.ame file @,lld, b~Og ~oid ~ t;b~ .tnaXirii\}11) piurlshment. was life· withQ~t po.s$i.bili~ of pa.rQle, to fin4 a defenda4t guilJ:Y ifhis name happened to .b.e OI:J~ ~9Jti~PA~Jy ~m.~ with mblori~es. ld .AlthQ~~ the precise causal me:chani~ at wo~ QilJy rould be ~se4 ~ tbe· researchers nevertheless poStulated that "a more severe penalty. raises the juror's estilnate4 'cosf of a Wl'on~l c01tvi~. 180 • • more dji:'«:tec;; at a ~ctilar cl~s of"persons~-partiCYJ.l-.iy w.btm. ~ c;l~s of ~QI)S i~ c;li.~~ed by ~~e appUcaqo~;~ of t,hat law violates an ~di:vi.~'s .ri~~ to'!~ protectio~_ u.t:t~er the l~w. See Yick Wo y. Hopkins, 118 U$. 356, 373 (18:86). C. Contlusioo For tb.e fotegoi~ ~-s' Tejtas's death penalty scheme is unconsti~tional. Therefore, Cargill's sentence of death_ should be -va~: CLAJM lf'OtmTE~ CARGILL'S:DEA.TB SENTENCE. SHOULD 8~ VACATEJJ BJ!!CAUSE THE PUNISHMENT PHASE JURY INSTRUctiON RESTRICTED THE EVQ)ENQ: TJIAT'l'Q JURYC:OULD DETE~ WAS MmGATING '·'[T]f.te Ej~ijl ~ F~~tb Amenclmen~ require th_~ ~~ Sf!g.~ncer, i.n ~1 ~Jut ~ ~ l®4 Qf ~i~ ~' ~-Qt b.;· ~lpde all capital cases from giving lnd_ependent mitigating weight tQ aspe~- of the defe'ndant'·s . .... ... . character· . ......... and . and __ ., record - cimunStaht.es . to -. of the . - ptotTered . offense " lh· mitigation-.'' Jd. ·at 60)•. Texas's statute governing capi~ trials gives'ri5e to th.l~ nsk by expr¢Ssly lilriiting tt,e eViden® that a jury may consider mi~i¢.jng; il) violation ofthe :Eighth and Fourteenth An.t~~_ex;t$.. Cargill's sei:J_teg~e ~~~fQre viol;,t~~: her appli¢:~ble rights ~der the Tex.as and United States Con_stitutioll$, as- 181 • • w~fl·~ $~ ~tp,tocy law and Un~ted State Supreme Calirt case law and state case· Ia:w. A~cordingly, Cargill's senten·~·sbould b:e vacated.. A. Tbe Texas S.tatute.:and CargiU's· Jury liisttuc:oons Article 37.071 of the TeJdts .Code· of Criminal PrOcediire .goVeinS th~ 1.~c#.Qns .given tot~~~ c¥,ita1 juries. The .s~ requires a trial court to su.~t at !'east ~Q i.~~ ~o ~be juJ)':' ( 1.) whetb~r tbe.~ i,s ·~ pro~bi.lj~ ~~- tbc; deten;dailt coilsti~ a cc>ntin~ing tlli'ea~ to soc.lety;· (2) and wh_e:ther, consi@zin.¥ all the evidence, ~·are ~fficien~ m._itiPting c~~~ to ~~a sentenc~· Qflife i;tiprisonm:ent Without· parole .. Tex. Cod~ Crim. Proc. art; 37.07·1, § 2(b)(l),. (e)(l). With re$pect 19 the mitigating circumstanc~· S'p«.ial issue, the court in'Ust instruc;i th~ jmy that, jfit answers Wit a circums~ w8IT81¢.S a $e.U~c.e of life hnprisonment Witho:ut parole rather than a sentenc.e of death, the defendam Will ~ei~ a life ·$el)Jen.~ ~4 will nQt be iJ;J,eligible f'or ~le. Id at § ~(eX2)(A}{B). Furth~ore, the ¢olirt must instruct the j\.n}' ·to answer this spe¢ihl iSSpe "Ye$" or "No;;,. that it ~Y not answer "No" unless ey· unanimous agreement, tha~ it may not answ~·"'Y e_s" unless t~ orrnore jurQJ'$ ~e, and that the jurors n~n:ot agree on which evidene<= in particular is .tnitigatihg. Id at§ 2(t)(i)-(3).. In addi"tjon to these proc.ed.~ ms~cti:on:s, T~ l.aw reqW,res the co~ to il;l$Uct the jury that it ·uShall consider mitigating evidence to be evi~ence that a jUtot might regard as reducing the defendant's. moral blame-Norlhiness.." Tex. Cod~ Crim. Proc. ~•. 11..071~ § 2(f)(4) (emphasi·s ~ddei{). No defuiltlon of'•motal blameworthi,n~" is provided, not are addition_al instructions $iven a;s to th~ re.J,ationsh_ip betwe¢1'1 this instni.ction and the demands of the special issue itself. As; directed by the $tu~e, th~·~al co1,1rt in C311Pll's case gave the statutorily require.
182 • • TBJci.rm i,lto cqnsi4e~~ion all ofthe eviden¢:e, i_n~lu~g the circu:ms:tances of the offense,_ the defendant' s· cha:rac:ter a:nd- ba.clc.ground, and th~ personal. moral culpability of the defendant, 'Is there sufficient mitigating cirCumstance: or cii'CtifilStaiicesto w~t that a senten-ce ofl~fe imprjson.rnen~ ratb~-th~ a cle$h..$~~c~ be imposed? (Itt ~~ 974.) Fqrtl;t~t ~19ilg Articl~ J-1.071, the ~~e inclUded the fo1lowmg ~.::· '"F\Irlh~_r, th.e jury i.~ ii)S~ct~d to CO®.i.d~ mjtjga.Jjng eviden<;e to be evide·ne:e that a juror might regard as redudng the be/endimt 's moral bl~rnewor(hin~s." (/d. at 968 (empba.sls ·added).) B. Te~s's S.~mt~ UnebnstitutjouUy Limits the Categories of.EViden~e a· C~pit..l Jll.r;Y M,y FiJJd 1\'JltigatP,J.g a.ad to W~.rra11t a ~ife Sea~ence The Supreme Court requ:ires that. a jury "be permitted to 4 consider fully' (] ~tiga~ evide»,~" tim provides a basis for, a ~tence of life rather: than- death." . . Abdui-Kabir v. Qtiarte17!Uill, 550 U.S. 233, 260 (2007). ''[S]uch consideratio.nt ' . t,h.e Co'9rt }Mls e,q,I~, ''Would be ~~mgless ~e_s~ t.he jmy P,pt o~y [bas] sucb evid~~ ~v&:ilable t9 it, b:ut @;_o Hs] pen:n.it.ted ~o giye th_a.t evid~ce m~i.ngfqJ, ¢itigati))g e_(f~t .lJ1. imposiJ)g ~~ ul~~te sente_n~.'' 1_4 (mten:ull quotations omitted). Esc* j~·is emi~led tQ bro~ di_sc~iOJl. ~n. ,~s~in.~ tb~ ip:J.pm:t ~f tlt.a$. mitj.g2;tipg eviden¢e ~l)_i~~ ~~ defe~_e proff~r.s; -~t ttl~ -$~e ijme, d.le $tate n;1ay no.t iimjt t_hjs evidence to t_h~se -categQ~~s w~~b. th~ S~ deetj:ls as niit.lgating. As ·s~d Ute: Coun in temtard v. Dre(~: "[A) S~ate calu)ot bar the consideratj~ of .. , eviden~ Tftf:r.e st;nt~n.cer c:oul_d ~Q.nably find thafit·wammts a ~en.~:·e les$ tban death.;' 542 U.S. 274, '285 (2004) (in~mal quoiati~ omitted). See also M_cCiiUicey v. Kenip, 481 U.S .. 279, -304 (1987) e'[T]he Co~tutioii ilm1ts a State-;s abilicy to narrow a sentenc:er's discretion to consider relevant evidenc;e th~ f?ltght cause. it to decline to impose the· death .sentenc~"). Consistent wim thi~ Jwi~pruc:ien~e, th_~ ~v~:U~$· of roi_tjg~t.i capital jury c_aruJ..ot be li,m_i~d to evidet1c~ t_h1i~ reJat~ solely t() th~- defend~~'s 170 183 • • culplbillty., the nat:ute of his crime, or what the crime says ~ut that individual defendant. &i! Ab.du}-Kab.ir, 550 U:$. -~ 246 (e~tabli~hing ·a low ~old f.or what constitutes "initigatfug evidcmce~" vfz., that which "migh~ prQYid~ a basls for refusin . . g to ~ .. . death . -. . ·se the ... ·- pe. . en ·a particular mdivl:dual ' notWfth.stan~i.;.,.. .nalty. . .. . ...U'6 the . .sever:iq; .of his crime ·or his potential to coniniit similar· offens.e.s· ·m th¢. fimn'e,)~ Fat example; evidence· that a defendarit has adju;~ weli "irt priso~ prior to his trial qualifies as Jllitigating evidenc¢· bea:use ~111~ is JJO question but 1;hat [mferenc;:es drawn from the evidence] would b.e 'mitigating' "in the sense tha~. they might s¢rve 'as a basis· for ~ s~tence less· than de~.'" $ktpper v. SQJdh Caroli-nt:z-, 476 U..S. 1, 4.,5 (1986) (quoting Lo!;kett, 438 U.S. at 604). Importantly, th;e· ~ ·Court obs~rved ~~ the proffered evidence--the testimony of two guards and a pri_s()n viSitol"-"would no.t relate sp«ifically to petitioner~s cqlpabi_lity for the crime he c:ommit:ted." ld at 4. Ev~ $til.l, it c~uld "hardly be disptit~ ~ the evi9en.c;e's exclusion ~-'deprived petition~ qf bi.$ right t9 pl~ before the selit~ce.r re.Ievallt eyidence in mitigation of punishment."'-' Id at 4. See also Abd.ul-[(q_lii.r, SSO U•. s. a~ 2.59 ('~Like Peo,r)"~ ev.~denc~; CQle'·s eVi:~~nce: of cbli4hP04. deptiva~Q.n ~~ ~-~~ Qf s~lf~ntro.I d,i4 ppt 1;e))ut eith¢r del.i~en.tWn~ or f.uJ;qre ~S~~ J,u~ was i)lten~ed ~ pro~~e tb~ jucy With an enti_rely different rea:son for not imposing a d~th ~tence./').. At the ~en~ p~, ~a:rgill ~s~te4 at le.!~St se:;r_ne evidei:i~ that bore no reJadQnship to her legal or mofal blameworthiness for the capital crime. Spec.i.5.~_ly, .J~en~ Boyd,-~ fellow 1nm~~e ~t Srnitb Councy· 1~1, t¢s~Ule4 ~-she and CargiU were iit the s~e pod tog~~r:~d th~t they got along well. (68 RR at Z3.) She teStified that CargHI would do B.oyd's hair som-etimes ;,md would share b~ food wjtlt SQy4.. (14.} Th.js· eyi_4.eDce, t_h~~&h u_nreJ~ed ~o Cargi"U's lege!l Qr mo.ral blamewortbiness fot the crime, bolstered the argument that Cargill neverthel~s.s was a worthwhile pe:rsOil u;n 184 • • evid¢1:1ce is e.qually D:l~ip.gful for jurors· as ba~kground and character ev·icleQ~ wheil deciding Whether to impose a .sentenCe of death. See Penry I, 492 U.S. at 311 ("[S]o long as the class of .llllJl'derer5 snbject to capital pttnish:rn~i i$ nmowed, there is no constitutional inf.mnity in a ~ure that a.Ilows ·Q. ju;t;y t.o recommend mercy ba:sed on the mitigating evidence introduced by a defendant"). Texas's statutorily-mandated inst,nlction fatally undern)ines the jul;y's capacity to give effect·to thiS broad¢t type of mitigating evident¢ by callfug Up.On jl.ll'OJ'S tp "consi_der mi,ti.p~_ng eviden~·to be evicJ.ence 11\• a juror njigb.~ ~gard as redZ(c_mg the defendant ~a m.otal blam.ew.onhiness;" T~ Code Cdrn. Proc. ;,ut_._ 37.()71, § 2(1)(4) (emphasis ·add_ed). (See al$Q CR at 968.) Ptit differently, this iJ:l$1,Jcti01_1 prec.lu4.e4 juro~ from cQl_lS•d~n.g mitigatilig evi~c~ ~l.a:t~ to · "ll's ~moral C argl_ ' ' ' blameworthiness-~ ' ' ' ' .. ' ' a ' .,, ' ' whoU ' limitation ' .. y at . -- With ·-· oddS . .. three . decades - of U ..S. Sl)preine Court precedent:. W~: ~Y of Cm:gi_l_l's j~ to ~it such eVidence-that is, eVidence they foUild to warrant a iife sentenee but that did nOt reduce carglli's moral blameworthiness fOr the cnme--tha(}uror- nece5satlly and . unt¢nably would Violate the court's im~ttu¢tlon.s.. Penry v: Jo~o"i), 532 u~.s. 7SZ. 800 (2001) (Penry 11). Becaiise "[w]e generally presume that jutoi'S foilow their i.nstNc~ol).S," tl;l~ e:~s(.s .a t~~~Ie proballilicy -~t t,he te!ult ·ofC~iPU's tri.~ woUld have been different had a constitutionaily adequate instruction been given. See !d.. at 799.. C. Conc:lilsioa "(W]heri the jury is not pemiitted to give meaningful effect or a 'reasoned moral iesponse' to a defendant~ s mitigating evideilc~·at~se· It Is forbidden from doing $0 by st,a~e or a judicial. int~tpretation of a statlj,~e s~.Q.t.~cin$ process is fatally flawed." AbduJ-Kabir, 550 U.S. at 264. At Catgiii's trial,_ the ju,y w~ proWbit~. from giVing effect-m~anjnsful or othet'WI~ rtUtigating evidence faJiliig outSide the boundaries specified i~ their ilJ,structi()ns; and this 172 185 • • prohibition thereby uncon$ti~~lly limi~. dYe j\JJ'Y'$ ·~ilit.Y to give theit "reas.oned moral response~'' See also Sltippet~ 476 u:s. at 8 (~The excl"Qsion by the state trial court of relevant mitigating evidence impeded the sente)lcing jury'·s abi~lity to carry- out its t$Sk of cQ~dering all relevant ~s of the cb~ct~ an4 record of the mdividUal offender."). Althp~ the Suprente Co~ lw.i J;lpheld Tt;~' s capiW pUAi$llmer;Jt. .s~tute; it did so "on the basis of assurances that tht special issues wotild be interpreted bro$4ly enO(,lgb to ~le sen~ing juries to consider ali· of the relevant mitigating evidence a.-defendant might present." Peti.Tjl I, 492 U_.S, at. 318.~ Since then-, the Court has repeatedly expressed concems "regarding the extent to its Wb.ieb. the J\UY mu.s:t he allQwed ~ot only w CO'n$ider Sl.;;ch. evlc;ien~, or t,O ~ye such evid,ence ~.fQre. i~. butto resp.®,d to it in a reasone:d,. I:nQral. m,.anne.t and to weigh suc;:b evid~~ ilJ i~ ~culW,l.of c;iecidi!tg ~ether ~ defe.ndm.t i_s ~y d~sei'Vi.J:tg of death." Brewet v. QuartermCD2, 550 l;J.S:. ~86, 296 (2007). :U:,. t.hjs ~. appli,cation of ~e T~ ea:PJtal p·tu:U.~~t -~~ i,inp_~ C~l's rjght to l)ave a:Il miu~~~g evidfmc~ c~id~ by tbe jUJOt:S ~they ~d ~b~~ h~ 4e~erve4. a life Qr d~~ seil~_ce_.. P~ i, 49Z U.S. a~ 320 (~[T]be T~ deatb penaiD' statl,l~~ WfiS ~pplied iA ~ unconstituti~ ~er by prec_lud:ing th~ jury from acting "itJ»n the particular mitiga.tmg eVidenc·e [the defendant] iht,rool,lce4. .")~ Th~fore, C~i.ll ~s death s¢ruen~:should be revers:e:d. CLAW: FIFI'EJ!!N I . TRIAL CO~SEL WERE INEFFEctiVE FQR.FAILiNG TO PREsERVE THE RECORD FOR APPEAL CargilPs conViction and sentence e>f dea~ was unl~wfi,tl.ly ~d unconstitutionally imposed in violation of her £tppllcable State aiJ~ fe4eral Co(lstitu~Qn.~ rigl)_ts, ~te ~ory l_aw, and Unit~ Stat~s Supreme Coun and 186 •• • su.,~e ~ l~w, bee~ trilll co~l failed to preserve the. record for appeal ~y acquiescing to a multitude:ofoff•the-reeord con.f~ce.s. ~ GiV~• the· Illlpottance of Preserving Issues for Appeal and the Cltar Mandate of th·e ABA Gaide.liu~ to Do So, F~U.-.re ~o P~rve ~h' Trial Rec:·ont. . . Constitutes lilefi"ediVe . . Assista·n~:e . of . Counsel Under Texas RUle of Appeilate PrOcedure 13.1 ~ a c·ourt reporter· is requ.ire4 to record $ll ~¢h <;or;t;fe~c~ that occ·ur a:.fter the trial proceedings are underWay. See1 e~g., Tanguma v.. State, 47 S ..W~3d 663, 670 (Tex. App.-Co~ .ChriSti ·2001). ;Howev~, if the: defendan:t fa.lls to make a pretdai motion to record beiieh C:Ortferenc~s, the issue i,s not·preserved Qn a~ sh.Quld t,hc; ~ repo~r :fail t9 d9 so. Vaile v.. State, Io9 S.W.Jd 500, 50.8-09 (Tex. Crlm. .App.. 2003) (holding that violati~$· of~e 13 :~ not preserveQ. fo:r. appeal unless defense· counsel objeCts to each indiVidual unrecorded b.eDCb. conference at trial). The clarity and integrity of the trlal record is vital to preserVing the possibUity .of meaningful ~nate, revi~. $.e.e, ~.g., Mich~l C$.1~Q, ~~ ~d Preserving· the ~Q~ ..,. Ol>jecti(JllS, 6 Am~ 11#. Tr.i.$ 60S (1.967); see (!#o Moos(IYi v. Sta,!e, 711. S. W:•.Z4. 53, 54 (T~·· Clitn. App. 1986) (no~ng that '·'enor m.iJ.st b:e properly p~:e,rved d.uring trjal so that ~ co~pleie reconJ of tb,e eqor c.an. be rev~ewed on~''); Maihews v. $!ate, 6js· S.W·.:2d Sj2, ·53·1 (Te~. Cri~.• App. 1·982) (ijotiilg ~ ''tbe tecor4 a;il~t be coli)plete on t,he issue UFged [on appeaij"). I~ Ts me d.uty of def~se C:O\U:ise.l t(,) "lce:ep the t:rj~l r«Qrd cl~r~ co~, an:d compiete, so ~t at the end of U:te tt.i~ UI~re wilJ be ~ accur~ .bj$tocy of the proceedings." Gatalano, 6 Am. JUI'~ Trials a:t is of paramount 605. This duty importance in a capital murde'r tri:al, as the im~ition of the 4e.at;h pel)alo/ i_s s·ubject to a:momatic appeal. Tex. Crim. Pta. art. 37.071 .§ 2(h). ·The ABA Guidelines highlight the importance of' preserving the reeord, stating that COUilsel must "ensure· tltat a full rCcOrd lS ~~ of alJle~ pfbceedi~gs 187 •• • -. ~- .." ABA Guidelints;, Guideline 10.8(BX2). The ·commen~ provid:es fu.t:tbc;r ~~ce, ~Qti.ns tb.~;_ ofte, of the 11.tost fim~n.;tal duti~:~ oJ ~- ~tt<:»tn~Y d_ef~~g a capital at trial is the preservation of any a.nd all conceiva,.ble ·errot:~ for cas¢ ~ch Stage of -appellate and poSt-conviction review. F~lwe tO preserve a:n is~ may result i_l;l tbe ~U~ 'being- ~~¢-ut.ed even th!.)ugil rev~ble ~r ~at trial, For thi.s r~n, Vi.al cougsel ir,l ~ death penaltY. we· tiiiist be especially aware not o~b' ofs~gies for wi.tu:img ~ ~~ b~ ~-SQ oftl1e t,._e~gb~e~e4 peed to fillly ~e all pot~:tial i.S$9es {or lat~ review. Id (commentary) •. Based on these go:idelineS, afailure to preserve the _record in a capital trial should be considerec.f, defici~;mt perfor.m$P.~·: The CCA.b.a:.s n:ever ditectly addressed the issue of ineffective assistan-ce of cqunsel for null.~ to ensure t;h~ preservation of a complete and cl~ record. However, there ·a(e a number of 'indidltions that failure t.o do so satis.ti~ the deficient performan~- pto[lg of Stricldoi_id. FirSt,. iii consicLmn.g these clait.ns, a nmnber C>f lower· ~llat~ ~ in T~ have moved di~ly ~o t;h,e Stric.kltmtl ptejUc:tl~e 15rt>ng,_ implicitly finding tru¢ fail_ure t9 ens_ure a. COJJipl~~ record Iglly ccm.~M~ d_eflcjem pe;rfqrmance_._ See. e.g._, }ft;n,t~ti_rt/ ~- $t{lfe, 2;39 S:.W.J·d 3-59, 3~7 (Tex. App;~~ Antonio 2097) (notiJ)g · tJ!a~ '·'co~et~nt trial counsel should eilSUre all tuliilgs [oecu.rrlng- duiiilg bench cOnferences] appear In the record"); . . Me¢ina \1• State,- 2004 WL 764444, *6 (Tex.- App.-.Texarkana 2004) (1,UJ.p1.1Pli~hed) ("~summs, arp~d_q, th.# tri~ co~l ~ by f2PJ.i~ t<:» ~$.1P'e that the court reporter recorded all bench confere.nce:s). The Fifth circ·uit. haS done the same in similar cases. See; e.g., Green v. Jo.hnso_n, 16.0 K3d 1029, H>42-43 (5th Cir_, l.998).. NQ Tex~, $1¢, ot fed~ col)rt has ever rejected the claim that defense counsel's failure w eti'su:re a complete record may coristjtute deficient performan:ce. Given the importance ofpreservi.iig ~ complete an4 c_i~ rec~rd fQr appe.al, a,-t4 the AB_A Guide.iiiles' ~xpJicit 175 188 • • teqilitements oil thls peilit, failure to e:n$1I'e that <>ff-the-retotd discQ"S$ions ·are ~~D)Qri.alized constjtutes defi~ent perfor:mance trod~ $triekl!11U/. li. Even if Failure to Preserve the· Trial Reeord Will N:(Jt Ah,JY" .A..Ut(Jmsdt~J.Iy S•Q.stY ~ l)e6.d~~t Perfor•ance Prong of' Striddaitd, tiie Deficient C.ondiit.t of CargO's Cou.nsel in 'l'hi.s Case W~r~_nts ~ Findiilg of Defid'eilt Penonn:anee BefQre the start of Cargill's capital trial, defense counsel failed to request that the court re¢rter record .an proceeding! mch.iding, bUt IiQt limiu, 60 .. . . . . . - . . . ·- . (8 RR at 78, 106; 9 RR.at 216, 219,.222, 233;· 12 RR at l67; 13 Jm,.at l19~· 14 RR at 17~ l·S RR at 110; 136~ 16 RR at 76~ 17 RR at 21, 44; 19 R.R at 158; 20 RR at 120;.24 RR·at 117-; 25 RR at 8, 51, 82·; 26 RR a( 17l, 179;· 27 RR ~t 7, 27;- .~s· RR ~ 19; 29 AA ~t l20, .136, 174, 247; 3Z RR ~.t 46, 1~9; 1'32·; 19); 34 AA ~10, a.t 295~ .35RRat 62, 68; .36 RR;at 121, 123; 3.7 RR at 29; 38 RR at 104,. 146, 204; 39 RR a.t 71; 40 Jm at 4; 4~ RR·• 173, 194.; 43 AA a~ 10; 44 Mat 20; 45 RR a~ 43, 182; 46 RR at 75·, 120~ 47 AA at2');7; 48 RR at. 56, i3.4~ 49 RR at 84; SO RRat 43; 53 RR at 5, ~; 51.AA a~ 3, 12, 14, 28:; 58 RR a.t 38, 263 (twice): 60 RR ~ 69; ~3 RRat164;and65RRa:t7.) . 176 189 • • See Valie, 109 s. . w. Jd at sos-.09 (bo14itl$ th_at ViQlaUo)l_$ ~f R~e 13 are not ~ed for ~~l ~~ d~.fe~ coun~l objec~s to· each individual mii'eCOrded ~c.b c.QJ'l{~e' ~~- n,i~).. ll') s~, ·trial co~ei'·~ (ailure to request that bench conferences be recorded in orc;ler to ~e 'the recc;mi m~· be .consid~ C. This lilquiry Mus.t 'take In~ Aceou)lt ~he ll)iji,~nt- Difiieulties of· Estabtlsbbig Prej'udlt.e Wh~n a "Subst:anfi...l aD.d C11Jd2Jl P.,r.tjon" of dJe Tra.1,1~eript is MiSSing In the absence of a cleat and complete rec~i'd, it ~s dfffiC1llt t9 detemiji)e Wb~ took pi@Ce dUring tiiaL As .sue~ arguments aboUt possible prejudice .suffer sinc:e th~ will frequently be viewed a:s ~ve. R~ tlli.~, tn~- Fjttb, C'ircu.it has beid that s·pecific prejudice need not he shown if one can establish that c,. . sUbstantial portion of the trial tnul$cript is· abs~nt In Unfte4 Sta.~e.s v. Selva, ~9 F·.2d 13.03, JjOS..06 (5th Cit. 197:7), the court held that-an ap~Uant need not show ptejucijc~ cro direct appeal if: ( 1) a "substantial and cru¢ial portion" of the trial transcript iS missing and (2) h~ iS represented on app~~ by counsel oth~ ~hm.t 1:1~ trial laW)'er; 'nt~ court reascn:t~ tha,t, under th~s~ ciit\lffl.S~Ce.$, "c;o~el ~ot re~01,1~ly b~ ~pectc;d to show SJ?eci_fic prejudice7' because '•even the most careful consideration of' the avmlabie ~cnpt. will nQt pe_li'D.jt U$ to ~~em wh¢tb~ reversible error· occurred while the proceedings Wert: not b.emg r®:Orded." Id at 1306. Altb.9ugl:) tJte F.if:\lt ClrcWt. rul_il)g ~$ not bm.44"tg o~ a stat~ court, the reasoning. in Sfclva nevertheless apPlies here, In Cargill's case, there ate few contextUal ch.ies for determining the .sUbject ~~_e,r of ~-e majQpty of th~ seyenty unrecorded djsc~ipns. Def~n.se col.l,g~e,l'$ d_eficient perfonnance in falling to preserve a complete record leads to -a most 1.77 190 • • . troubliilg res·u~t:· insulation from meaningful ap~llate review. Therefore a reyersai of Cttrgill 's ·C9Qvteti~n and ~tence l.s m~rj~ ~ l,lo.~ d~t;i~ie(l~ petfOrn)ai.lce an~ prej~di.c;:e SJ"e ~fi~ v. PM~ FQR U..LJE.F WHEREFORE, ~berly Dianne Cargill prays that this Court} 1. Order an evidenti$ty hearing fur the· pl,lll)O:se ·of ex&Jilin_ing the m~~ of her claims; 2:-: V~ h,~ CQI;lY~ction ~4 4~ s~n,tence; .3. Grant any other relief that: law orjUsticemay~quire. DATED: August 19,'2014 191 • • STATE OF TEXAS § CQUNrY OF SMtnl § VS.UFICArtON B.E.F.O;RE ~. ~~ llllde.rs'ign~ aWh~.r.iW, on tlrls 4.y ~nallyapp~d J~et Gilger•VanderZandel) wha 'UpOn being duly ·sworn by me testified as folloW!: L I am a member ()(the State Bar of Texas .. 2. I am the duly authorize:d attorney for Kim~rly Cargill, having the .ut;hQri.ty to prepa~e ·and w verifY Ms. Cargiil's Appllca.tiQ~ fot Past- Convictio~ Wrlt oflh,beas CorpU:S• 3. I liave Pi'ePared and ~vc; read the (orego~ A.Pplj.cation (or Post-. Conviction Writ of'Habcas Corpus~ and I believe all.allegations m'it tQb¢~e~ SUBSCRIBED AND S'WORN'TO BEFORE ME 2014. ofTexas 1'i9 192 • • CERT:iFlCATE OF S~.VI~ l, tb~ u,td~igned-, declare and certify that l have: serve.d the foremoing Jp(ti~ Application for Writ ofH@.eas. Corpus by ~d to:. · · L_~r,.~ Rhym~$. Honorable Jack Skeen CrimiJ)al P<:tst•Trial Judge, 24 t st Dlstrict Court Smith Co¢.ty District Clerk S~th Co\lllty Courthc;»tise l oo N. Broadway, S_uite 3180 1.0() N,_ B.ro~way, Root.n22() Tyle_r, Te~ 7$70? f:ylet, Texas: 75102 (Original and one 'copy, via hand delivery) (One ~opy via hand ®livery) S'mith County Distri¢t .Attm:n~ AITN: Mlke West. i 00 N. Broadway, SUjt.e 400 Tyl_~r, T~xas 75702 (One Copy via.h~~ d~l.ivezy) Kimberly Carglil TDCJ # 999512 M.o'Untain Vlew Unit 2305 .Ransom Road Gat~llet T~_as'76S~8 (One copy., via mail) Tbjs certjfication is executed on AugUst i9, i014 at Austin, Texas. I de(:lare undey pe~l)' of peJ',jucy that the foregoing i . ®e ~4 eor_tect to the· best of my knowledge. · · · 193 • • Lois Rogers Smith County Courthouse (903) 590-1660 100 N. Broadway, Room 204 Smith County Fax (903) 590-1661 Tyler, Texas 75702 District Clerk I, Lois Rogers, Clerk of the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas, do hereby certify that the documents contained in this record to which this certification is attached are all of the documents specified by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(a) and all other documents timely requested by a party to this proceeding under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(b ). Given under my hand and seal at my office inTyler, Smith County, Texas this 6/2/2016. Lois Rogers, Smith County District Clerk By: /s/ g'f4Ut Lwi4 Blair LewisQ. O~y. nat's:~ ~good gig, ~'tit?
A. NQ. OH RRa:t 57-58), ot misstated the results otNasir's DNA analysis,
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cargill, Kimberly, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cargill-kimberly-texapp-2016.