United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 02-11096 Clerk
BILLY RAY NELSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
Before JONES, Chief Judge, KING, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, SMITH,
WIENER, BARKSDALE, GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS,
CLEMENT, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:
A panel of this court previously affirmed the district court’s
denial of Billy Ray Nelson’s habeas corpus petition challenging his
sentence on the ground that the Texas capital-sentencing procedure
failed to give constitutionally sufficient effect to his mitigating
evidence, in violation of Penry v. Lynaugh (Penry I), 492 U.S. 302
(1989). See Nelson v. Cockrell, 77 F. App’x 209 (5th Cir. Aug. 12,
2003) (unpublished). Nelson petitioned the Supreme Court for writ
of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated our
judgment, and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration
in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennard v. Dretke, 542
U.S. 274 (2004). Nelson v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 934 (2004). On remand,
a panel of this court once again affirmed the district court’s
denial of Nelson’s habeas corpus petition. See Nelson v. Dretke,
442 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2006). Having ordered rehearing en banc,
Nelson v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2006), we again reconsider
the application of Penry I and its progeny to Nelson’s case. We
conclude that, on the facts presented here, there is a reasonable
likelihood that the Texas capital-sentencing scheme precluded the
jury from giving full effect to Nelson’s mitigating evidence as
required by the Supreme Court; accordingly, we REVERSE the district
court’s denial of habeas relief and REMAND with instructions to
grant the writ of habeas corpus.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 11, 1991, a Texas jury found Nelson guilty of
capital murder for the February 23, 1991, slaying and brutal sexual
assault of his neighbor, Charla Wheat. Evidence presented during
the guilt/innocence phase of trial revealed the following: Nelson
gained entrance to Wheat’s apartment by asking if he could use her
phone. Once inside, he cut the telephone cord to prevent her from
calling for help and then proceeded to stab her. He then found
Wheat’s roommate, Carol Maynard, who was five months pregnant at
the time, and forced her to get out of bed and enter the living
2
room, where Wheat was on her knees bleeding from her stab wounds.
Nelson told the women to remove their clothing and threatened to
kill them if they refused. He then forced the women to perform
sexual acts on him and each other. Thereafter, he stabbed Maynard
in the neck and proceeded to strike Wheat. Nelson left briefly but
Wheat began screaming and he returned. While Maynard pretended to
be dead, Nelson struck and stabbed Wheat until she died. He then
left the women’s apartment.
At the sentencing phase of the trial, Nelson presented the
following mitigating evidence, which we will discuss more fully
infra: (1) he was rejected by his mother, who had completely
abandoned him by age 14 (“abusive childhood” evidence); (2) he
abused drugs and alcohol (“substance abuse” evidence); (3) he has
troubled relationships with his brother and with women; (4) he had
a child out of wedlock, with whom he was not permitted to have a
relationship; and (5) a psychiatrist testified he was suffering
from borderline personality disorder (“mental disorder” evidence).
For a jury to impose the death penalty at the time of Nelson’s
trial, Article 37.071(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
required the jury to answer two special issue questions concerning
evidence presented in mitigation: “(1) whether the conduct of the
defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed
deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of
the deceased or another would result” (“the deliberateness special
3
issue”); and “(2) whether there is a probability that the defendant
would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a
continuing threat to society” (“the future-dangerousness special
issue”).1 The jury answered both special-issue questions in the
affirmative, sentencing Nelson to death. Nelson appealed his
sentence and conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals;
that court affirmed, Nelson v. Texas, 864 S.W.2d 496 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993), and Nelson’s conviction became final when the Supreme
Court denied certiorari review, Nelson v. Texas, 510 U.S. 1215
(1994).
Nelson filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in
September 1997, arguing that the Texas capital sentencing scheme,
i.e., the two special-issue questions, failed to ensure that the
jury could give the constitutionally required consideration of and
effect to his mitigating evidence of his mental disorder, abusive
childhood, and substance abuse under Penry I, 492 U.S. 302. He also
filed a second petition in February 1998, alleging additional
claims. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ based
on the findings and recommendations of the trial court. Ex parte
Nelson, No. 49,886-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 10, 2001).
1
Although the Texas legislature amended the special issues
sentencing scheme in 1991, Nelson was sentenced under the pre-
amendment version of the special issues. In some cases, the jury
was also given a third special issue addressing provocation.
Nelson’s jury did not receive a provocation instruction, and
therefore we do not address that aspect of the pre-amendment
special issues sentencing scheme here.
4
Specifically, with regard to Nelson’s Penry claims, the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals recognized that, to be constitutional, “a death
penalty procedure must allow the jury to consider all relevant
mitigating evidence.” Ex parte Nelson, No. 8,214 at 88 (118th
Judicial District Howard County, Tex. July 10, 2001) (findings of
fact and conclusions of law). The court also recognized that where
the defendant’s mitigating evidence is beyond the scope of the
special issues, and the jury is unable to give effect to its
reasoned moral response to the mitigating evidence, the procedure
is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. Id. In applying
the law to the facts of Nelson’s case, the court noted that
Nelson’s evidence of drug and alcohol abuse had no mitigating
relevance beyond the scope of the special issues. Id. at 89.
Moreover, with regard to the other mitigating evidence presented,
[t]he Court instructed the jury on the charge on
punishment, “You should consider and give effect in
answering each issue to your evaluation of all of the
evidence before you, including all aspects of the
background and character of the defendant and the
circumstances of the crime.” . . . The jury charges and
special issues allowed the jurors to give effect to all
presented mitigating evidence in their answers to the
special issues including the intoxication of [Nelson] at
the time of the offense.
Id. at 90. Therefore, the court concluded that the procedure was
constitutional as applied. The court dismissed Nelson’s subsequent
habeas petition as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Nelson, No.
49,886-02 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 10, 2001).
5
Nelson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
federal district court in August 2002. The district court rejected
Nelson’s Penry claim for failing to meet the requirements of our
now-defunct “constitutional-relevance” test.2 A panel of this court
granted Nelson a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on this
issue; however, the panel ultimately affirmed the district court’s
denial of habeas relief. Nelson petitioned the Supreme Court for
writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petition,
vacated the panel’s judgment, and remanded the case to this court
for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in
Tennard, 542 U.S. 274. On remand, a panel of this court once again
affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. All three
panel members concurred in the judgment; however, there was no
consensus on the correct methodology for analyzing Nelson’s claim.3
Accordingly, this court ordered rehearing en banc, and we once
2
The “constitutional-relevance” test required that
petitioner’s evidence show “(1) a ‘uniquely severe permanent
handicap[ ] with which the defendant was burdened through no fault
of his own’ and (2) that the criminal act was attributable to this
severe permanent condition.” Davis v. Scott, 51 F.3d 457, 460-61
(5th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) (alteration in original). As
discussed below, in Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. at 275, the Supreme
Court rejected the constitutional relevance test and reaffirmed
that the standard for relevance is “any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination
of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
3
Chief Judge Jones authored an opinion; Judge Stewart
concurred in the judgment only; and Judge Dennis filed a concurring
opinion. Nelson v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 282.
6
again reconsider the application of Penry in light of Tennard to
the facts of Nelson’s case.4
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Because Nelson filed his § 2254 habeas petition after April
24, 1996, this habeas proceeding is governed by the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See Fisher v. Johnson,
174 F.3d 710, 711 (5th Cir. 1999). We have jurisdiction to resolve
the merits of Nelson’s habeas petition because, as stated above, we
granted him a COA on his Penry claim. See Nelson v. Dretke, 442
F.3d at 284; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).
Under AEDPA, a federal court may not grant a writ of habeas
corpus “with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the
merits in State court proceedings” unless the petitioner shows that
the state court’s adjudication “resulted in a decision that was
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States,” or that the state court’s adjudication of a claim
“resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in
4
We note that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Brewer
v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 273 (5th Cir.), cert. granted, 127 S. Ct. 433
(2006), Cole v. Dretke, 418 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. granted
sub nom. Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 127 S. Ct. 432 (2006), and Ex
Parte Smith, 185 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App.) cert. granted sub
nom. Smith v. Texas, 127 S. Ct. 377 (2006).
7
the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v.
Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000). A state court’s decision is
“contrary to” clearly established federal law if (1) the state
court “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law” announced
in Supreme Court cases, or (2) the state court decides a case
differently than the Supreme Court did on a set of materially
indistinguishable facts. Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16
(2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). A state court’s
application of clearly established federal law is “unreasonable”
within the meaning of AEDPA when the state court identifies the
correct governing legal principle from Supreme Court precedent, but
applies that principle to the case in an objectively unreasonable
manner. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003).
A writ of habeas corpus may also issue if the state court’s
adjudication of a claim “resulted in a decision that was based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
Under AEDPA, a state court’s factual findings are “presumed to be
correct” unless the habeas petitioner rebuts the presumption
through “clear and convincing evidence.” Id. § 2254(e)(1); Miller
v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 281 (5th Cir. 2000).
We review the district court’s conclusions of law regarding
the state court’s application of federal law de novo, and we review
8
the district court’s findings of fact, if any, for clear error.
Collier v. Cockrell, 300 F.3d 577, 582 (5th Cir. 2002).
B. Clearly Established Federal Law
Under AEDPA, our duty is to determine whether the state
court’s determination was contrary to or an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law as determined by the
Supreme Court at the time that Nelson’s conviction became final in
1994. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 405. In Tennard and Smith v. Texas,
two recent cases involving Penry claims, the Supreme Court
unequivocally stated that the relevant inquiry under its precedent
was whether there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury would
interpret the Texas special issues in a manner that precluded it
from fully considering and giving full effect to all of the
defendant’s mitigating evidence. See Tennard, 542 U.S. at 288-89;
see also Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 38 (2004) (per curiam). This
“full-effect” standard requires that a juror be able to express his
reasoned moral response to evidence that has mitigating relevance
beyond the scope of the special issues; i.e., a juror cannot be
precluded from electing a sentence less than death if he believes
that the mitigating evidence offered makes the defendant less
morally culpable for the crime, even if he nonetheless feels
compelled to answer the two special issues in the affirmative. See
Penry v. Johnson (Penry II), 532 U.S. 782, 797 (2001); Penry I, 492
U.S. at 320. A review of the Supreme Court’s decisions in this area
9
demonstrates that this “full-effect” standard was clearly
established by the time that Nelson’s conviction became final.
1. Jurek v. Texas and the Immediate Post-Furman Cases
In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Supreme Court
held that state capital-sentencing schemes allowing the death
penalty to be “wantonly and . . . freakishly imposed” by permitting
unbridled discretion in sentencing violated the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 310 (Stewart, J., concurring). After
Furman, states began to rewrite their death penalty statutes,
restricting the classes of death-penalty eligible offenders and
channeling jurors’ discretion in sentencing in an attempt to comply
with the Supreme Court’s directive. Specifically, Texas responded
to Furman with the “special issues” capital-sentencing scheme at
issue in this case, which was designed to guide jurors’
consideration of mitigating evidence offered in the sentencing
phase of capital cases.
The immediate post-Furman Supreme Court cases addressing this
and other sentencing schemes attempted to strike a balance between
satisfying two competing constitutional requirements–the
requirement of “individualized sentencing” that takes into account
the unique facts of each case and each defendant, and the
requirement of preventing the arbitrary imposition of the death
penalty that can result from giving the sentencer unfettered
discretion. These cases announced the principles that would
10
underlie the Supreme Court’s later pronouncement that a capital
sentencing scheme must allow the sentencer to give full effect to
all of the defendant’s mitigating evidence.
In Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), the Supreme Court
upheld the facial constitutionality of the Texas special-issues
sentencing scheme on the same day that it ruled on the validity of
the post-Furman death penalty statutes of four other states. See
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (upholding the facial
constitutionality of Georgia’s capital-sentencing scheme, which
narrowed the class of death-eligible offenders and guided the
sentencer’s consideration of mitigating and aggravating evidence);
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) (upholding the facial
constitutionality of Florida’s capital-sentencing scheme, which
narrowed the class of death-eligible offenders and guided the
sentencer’s consideration of mitigating and aggravating evidence);
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) (striking down North
Carolina’s mandatory capital-sentencing scheme because it gave
sentencers no discretion to impose the death penalty for certain
crimes); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976) (striking down
Louisiana’s capital-sentencing scheme requiring the imposition of
the death penalty for certain crimes). In Jurek, a plurality of the
Court explained that, while the Texas sentencing scheme was
constitutional on its face, “[a] jury must be allowed to consider
on the basis of all relevant evidence not only why a death sentence
11
should be imposed, but also why it should not be imposed.” Jurek,
428 U.S. at 271 (plurality opinion) (citing Woodson, 428 U.S. at
303-05); see also Roberts, 428 U.S. at 334-36 (plurality opinion).
Therefore, “the constitutionality of the Texas procedures turns on
whether the enumerated questions allow consideration of
particularized mitigating factors.” Jurek, 428 U.S. at 272. While
observing that the future-dangerousness special issue allowed
consideration of some types of mitigating evidence, the Jurek
plurality also left room for as-applied challenges to the Texas
sentencing scheme, noting that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
had not yet interpreted the deliberateness and provocation special
issues. Id. at 272 n.7 (“[I]t is as yet undetermined whether or not
the jury’s consideration of those questions would properly include
consideration of mitigating circumstances.”).
2. Lockett v. Ohio and Eddings v. Oklahoma
Echoing these post-Furman concerns that the sentencer be able
to consider and give effect to mitigating evidence in a
constitutionally adequate way, the Supreme Court in Lockett v.
Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), struck down Ohio’s death penalty
statute, which allowed the sentencer to impose a sentence less than
death for certain crimes only if the mitigating evidence showed
that (1) the victim induced or facilitated the offense, (2) the
offense was a result of duress, coercion, or strong provocation, or
(3) the offense was a product of psychosis or mental retardation.
12
A plurality of the Court explained that this sentencing scheme,
which allowed the sentencer to consider some aspects of the
mitigating evidence presented but not others, was unconstitutional
because
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the
sentencer, in all but the rarest kind of capital case,
not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating
factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record
and any of the circumstances of the offense that the
defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than
death.
Id. at 604 (plurality opinion); see also Kansas v. Marsh, 126 S.
Ct. 2516, 2525 (2006) (noting that the Ohio sentencing scheme in
Lockett was unconstitutional “because, by limiting a jury’s
consideration of mitigation to three factors specified in the
statute, it prevented sentencers in capital cases from giving
independent weight to mitigating evidence militating in favor of a
sentence other than death”) (emphasis added). Four years later, in
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), a majority of the Court
adopted the Lockett plurality’s reasoning to vacate an Oklahoma
death sentence where the sentencing judge refused to consider, as
a matter of law, the defendant’s mitigating evidence of his abusive
childhood and treatable emotional disturbance. The Court rejected
the state appellate court’s application of a heightened-relevance
standard to the mitigating evidence, noting that while the
sentencer can “determine the weight to be given relevant mitigating
evidence,” it “may not give it no weight by excluding such evidence
13
from [its] consideration.” Id. at 115; see also Marsh, 126 S. Ct.
at 2525 (observing that, in Eddings, “a majority of the Court held
that a sentencer may not categorically refuse to consider any
relevant mitigating evidence”).
3. Franklin v. Lynaugh
The Court considered an as-applied challenge to the Texas
capital-sentencing scheme for the first time in Franklin v.
Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 (1988). There, the Court held that the
special issues allowed the jury to give constitutionally adequate
effect to the petitioner’s mitigating evidence of good behavior
during a previous term of imprisonment. A plurality of the Court
stated that, because the petitioner’s evidence of good prison
behavior did not have mitigating significance independent of its
relevance to the petitioner’s propensity to commit future crimes,
“[i]n resolving the [future-dangerousness special issue] the jury
was surely free to weigh and evaluate petitioner’s disciplinary
record as it bore on his ‘character’–that is, his ‘character’ as
measured by his likely future behavior.” Id. at 177-78. Justice
O’Connor concurred separately, emphasizing that, although Jurek
upheld the facial validity of the Texas capital sentencing scheme,
and in this case the mitigating relevance of all of the
petitioner’s evidence was within the scope of the special issues,
[i]f . . . petitioner had introduced mitigating evidence
about his background or character or the circumstances of
the crime that was not relevant to the special verdict
questions, or that had relevance to the defendant’s moral
14
culpability beyond the scope of the special verdict
questions, the jury instructions would have provided the
jury with no vehicle for expressing its “reasoned moral
response” to that evidence. If this were such a case,
then we would have to decide whether the jury’s inability
to give effect to that evidence amounted to an Eighth
Amendment violation. In my view, however, this is not
such a case.
Id. at 185 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
4. Penry I
The very next term, the Supreme Court considered just such a
case in Penry I, 492 U.S. 302. The Penry I Court held that habeas
relief was appropriate because a juror presented with the Texas
special issues could not have given effect to the full scope of the
mitigating evidence that had been presented at the sentencing
phase. Penry, a death-row habeas petitioner, had offered mitigating
evidence at sentencing of (1) a low I.Q. indicating likely mental
retardation; (2) an organic brain disorder that prevented him from
appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct or conforming his
behavior to the law; (3) a troubled, abusive upbringing; and (4) an
anti-social personality disorder. Penry argued that the Texas
special issues, as applied in his case, were an inadequate vehicle
to allow the jury to consider or give effect to this evidence,
because the evidence had mitigating relevance beyond the scope of
the special issues. The Court, with Justice O’Connor writing for
the majority, first held that granting Penry the relief he
requested would not announce a new rule on collateral review in
violation of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), because granting
15
such relief was “dictated by Eddings and Lockett.” Penry I, 492
U.S. at 317.
The Court then granted the habeas petition, emphasizing that
“it is not enough simply to allow the defendant to present
mitigating evidence to the sentencer. The sentencer must also be
able to consider and give effect to that evidence in imposing
sentence.” Id. at 319. Only then can the sentence imposed “‘reflect
a reasoned moral response to the defendant’s background, character,
and crime.’” Id. (quoting California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 545
(1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). Indeed, as “both the
concurrence and dissent in Franklin understood,” Jurek, in which
the Court upheld the facial validity of the Texas capital-
sentencing scheme, “rest[ed] fundamentally on the express assurance
that the special issues would permit the jury to fully consider all
the mitigating evidence a defendant introduced that was relevant to
the defendant’s background and character and to the circumstances
of the offense.” Id. at 321 (emphasis added).
In Penry’s case, however, the Court held that the evidence of
mental retardation and abusive childhood had mitigating relevance
beyond the scope of the deliberateness and future-dangerousness
issues, because it also spoke to Penry’s moral culpability;
therefore, the jury was unable to give effect to the mitigating
evidence in a manner consistent with the Eighth Amendment. First,
with regard to the deliberateness special issue, the Court reasoned
16
that, although a jury could give partial effect to Penry’s mental
retardation and abusive past by finding that his actions were not
deliberate, a jury could also conclude that Penry acted
deliberately but, because of his mental retardation and abusive
childhood, “was less morally ‘culpable than defendants who have no
such excuse,’ but who acted ‘deliberately’ as that term is commonly
understood.” Id. at 322-23 (quoting California v. Brown, 479 U.S.
at 545 (O’Connor, J., concurring)). Without a special instruction
enabling the jury to give effect to the impact of Penry’s
mitigating evidence on his moral culpability, the jury lacked an
adequate vehicle through which to express its “reasoned moral
response” to this evidence. Second, the Court held that the future-
dangerousness instruction was likewise constitutionally inadequate
because, in this case, “Penry’s mental retardation and history of
abuse is . . . a two-edged sword: it may diminish his
blameworthiness for his crime even as it indicates that there is a
probability that he will be dangerous in the future.” Id. at 324.
Because Penry’s mitigating evidence, viewed through the lens of
future dangerousness, “is relevant only as an aggravating factor[,]
. . . ‘[i]t did not allow the jury to consider a major thrust of
Penry’s evidence as mitigating evidence.’” Id. at 323-24 (quoting
Penry v. Lynaugh, 832 F.2d 915, 925 (5th Cir. 1987)).
Although the Court did not expressly use the words “full
effect” in Penry I, its reasoning makes clear that “full effect” is
17
what it meant. See, e.g., Penry I, 492 U.S. at 323 (“In the absence
of jury instructions defining ‘deliberately’ in a way that would
clearly direct the jury to consider fully Penry’s mitigating
evidence as it bears on his personal culpability, we cannot be sure
that the jury was able to give effect to the mitigating evidence of
Penry’s mental retardation and history of abuse in answering the
first special issue.”) (emphasis added); id. at 318-19 (“Penry
argues that those assurances were not fulfilled in his particular
case because, without appropriate instructions, the jury could not
fully consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence of his
mental retardation and abused childhood in rendering its sentencing
decision.”). Further, even the dissent in Penry I recognized that
the Court was applying a full-effect standard:
that the constitutionality turns on whether the questions
allow mitigating factors not only to be considered (and,
of course, given effect in answering the questions), but
also to be given effect in all possible ways, including
ways that the questions do not permit. . . . What the
Court means by “fully consider” (what it must mean to
distinguish Jurek) is to consider for all purposes,
including purposes not specifically permitted by the
questions.
Penry I, 492 U.S. at 355 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citation
omitted). Thus there can be no doubt that the Penry I Court applied
a standard requiring the jury to be able to give full consideration
and full effect to a defendant’s mitigating evidence.
The State contends that the “full effect” language in Penry I
and its progeny “is merely dicta, because it would otherwise
18
overrule Jurek”; however, this argument mischaracterizes the
holding in Jurek, which upheld only the facial validity of the
Texas special issues scheme. See Jurek, 428 U.S. at 272 (stating
that “the constitutionality of the Texas procedures turns on
whether the enumerated questions allow consideration of
particularized mitigating factors,” but also noting that “it is as
yet undetermined whether or not the jury’s consideration of [the
special issues] would properly include consideration of mitigating
circumstances” in every situation). The Penry I Court’s holding was
a case-specific application of Jurek, which expressly left room for
as-applied challenges. See Penry I, 429 U.S. at 320 (“[B]oth the
concurrence and the dissent understood Jurek as resting
fundamentally on the express assurance that the special issues
would permit the jury to fully consider all the mitigating evidence
a defendant introduced that was relevant to the defendant’s
background and character and to the circumstances of the
offense.”). That Jurek involved only a facial challenge to the
Texas statute is apparent not only from the Court’s decision in
Penry I, holding the Texas statute unconstitutional as applied, but
also from the Court’s decisions in as-applied challenges to the
constitutionality of the death penalty procedures in other states.
As discussed above, the Supreme Court upheld facial challenges to
the death penalty procedures in Georgia and Florida at the same
time that it upheld the facial challenge to the Texas statute. See
19
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153; Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242.
Nevertheless,
after Gregg and Proffitt and prior to Franklin, [the
Court] held unconstitutional specific applications of the
same Georgia and Florida statutes [it] earlier had
approved. See Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980)
(vague and overly broad construction of aggravating
factor rendered death sentence unconstitutional);
Hitchcock v. Dugger,[481 U.S. 393 (1987),] (holding it
unconstitutional to restrict jury’s consideration of
mitigating factors to those enumerated in the statute).
Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 384 (1993) (O’Connor, J.,
dissenting). Further, applying the full-consideration and full-
effect standard does not require overruling Jurek, because “some
types of mitigating evidence can be fully considered by the
sentencer in the absence of special jury instructions.” Penry I,
492 U.S. at 315 (citing Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. at 175
(plurality opinion); Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. at 185-86
(O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)); see also Graham v.
Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 521 (1993) (Souter, J., dissenting)
(explaining that the petitioner’s evidence of “[v]oluntary chores
for and church attendance with a relative, and supplying some level
of support for [his] children” could be considered through the
future-dangerousness special issue). The Constitution requires a
court to determine whether the special issues as applied enable the
sentencer to give full consideration and full effect to the capital
defendant’s mitigating evidence; the “full-effect” standard is
not–and has never been–inconsistent with the holding in Jurek.
20
5. Graham v. Collins and Johnson v. Texas
After Penry I, the Court addressed in Graham, 506 U.S. 461,
and Johnson, 509 U.S. 350, two more as-applied challenges to the
Texas special issues sentencing scheme, both of which denied relief
to petitioners who claimed that the special issues failed to give
effect to the mitigating evidence of their youth. In Graham, the
Court held that Teague barred it from granting relief to a habeas
petitioner who lodged a Penry challenge to his death sentence,
which became final in 1984. The petitioner argued that the Texas
special issues did not give constitutionally adequate effect to his
mitigating evidence of good character and youth. Because the Court
disposed of the case on Teague grounds, it did not address the
substantive merits of the petitioner’s Penry claim; instead, it
considered whether granting the petitioner’s requested relief would
have constituted a new rule at the time the petitioner’s sentence
became final in 1984, holding that
even if Penry reasonably could be read to suggest that
Graham’s mitigating evidence was not adequately
considered under the former Texas procedures, that is not
the relevant inquiry under Teague. Rather, the
determinative question is whether reasonable jurists
reading the case law that existed in 1984 could have
concluded that Graham’s sentencing was not
constitutionally infirm. We cannot say that all
reasonable jurists would have deemed themselves compelled
to accept Graham’s claim in 1984. . . . The ruling Graham
seeks, therefore, would be a “new rule” under Teague.
Id. at 477.
21
Later that term, in Johnson, 509 U.S. 350, the Court
considered a similar challenge on direct review. In Johnson, the
only mitigating evidence that the petitioner offered was that of
his youth at the time he committed the crime. The Court noted that,
unlike other mitigating evidence that the Court had considered in
previous cases, “[t]he relevance of youth as a mitigating factor
derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are
transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and
recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside.” Id.
at 368 (emphasis added). Given these unique characteristics of
youth, the Court held that this evidence did not lie beyond the
reach of the sentencer applying the Texas special issues because
“there is ample room in the assessment of future dangerousness for
a juror to take account of the difficulties of youth as a
mitigating force in the sentencing determination.” Id. The Court
applied the standard set forth in Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370
(1990), to “determine ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood
that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that
prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.’”
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 367 (quoting Boyde, 494 U.S. at 380).
“Although the reasonable likelihood standard does not require that
the defendant prove that it was more likely than not that the jury
was prevented from giving effect to the evidence, the standard
requires more than a mere possibility of such a bar.” Id. The
22
Court, again emphasizing the unique qualities of youth as a
mitigating factor, distinguished Penry I, noting that “[u]nlike
Penry’s mental retardation, which rendered him unable to learn from
his mistakes, the ill effects of youth that a defendant may
experience are subject to change and, as a result, are readily
comprehended as a mitigating factor in consideration of the second
special issue.” Johnson, 509 U.S. at 369. Further, unlike the
evidence of mental retardation at issue in Penry I, a juror’s
consideration of the impact of youth on the petitioner’s conduct
“is not independent of an assessment of personal culpability. . . .
If any jurors believed that the transient qualities of petitioner’s
youth made him less culpable for the murder, there is no reasonable
likelihood that those jurors would have deemed themselves
foreclosed from considering that in evaluating petitioner’s future
dangerousness.” Id. at 369-70. Thus Graham and Johnson stand for
the proposition that youth, which is different in kind and in
mitigating effect from Penry’s evidence of mental retardation and
abusive childhood, can be fully considered and given effect through
the special-issues sentencing scheme.
6. Penry II
In Penry II, 532 U.S. 782, Justice Kennedy, the author of
Johnson, joined the majority, and the Court reaffirmed that the
standard is full effect, once again invalidating the application of
the Texas special issues to Penry’s mitigating evidence of mental
23
retardation and abusive upbringing. After the Court vacated Penry’s
death sentence in Penry I, the State of Texas retried Penry, who
was again found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death.
During the sentencing phase of the second trial, the court
submitted the same special issues to the jury that were the focus
of Penry I, only this time the court also provided a supplemental
“nullification” instruction. This instruction directed the jury to
consider the effect of all of the mitigating evidence on Penry’s
personal culpability, and,
[i]f you determine, when giving effect to the mitigating
evidence, if any, that a life sentence, as reflected by
a negative finding to the issue under consideration,
rather than a death sentence, is an appropriate response
to [Penry’s] personal culpability . . . , a negative
finding should be given to one of the special issues.
Id. at 790.
The Court, fully aware of the analytical constraints imposed
by the deferential AEDPA standard of review, held that the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals had unreasonably applied the holding of
Penry I when it held that the special issues and the nullification
instruction were constitutionally adequate vehicles to give effect
to Penry’s mitigating evidence. Justice O’Connor, writing for the
Court, stated:
the key under Penry I is that the jury be able to
“consider and give effect to [a defendant’s mitigating]
evidence in imposing sentence.” 492 U.S., at 319, 109 S.
Ct. 2934 (emphasis added). See also Johnson v. Texas, 509
U.S. 350, 381(1993) (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting) (“[A]
sentencer [must] be allowed to give full consideration
and full effect to mitigating circumstances” (emphasis in
24
original)). For it is only when the jury is given a
“vehicle for expressing its ‘reasoned moral response’ to
that evidence in rendering its sentencing decision,”
Penry I, 492 U.S. at 328, that we can be sure that the
jury “has treated the defendant as a ‘uniquely individual
human being]’ and has made a reliable determination that
death is the appropriate sentence,” id., at 319 (quoting
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304, 305
(1976)).
Penry II, 532 U.S. at 797. As the Court held in Penry I, the
deliberateness and future-dangerousness issues were not broad
enough to provide a vehicle that allowed the jury to express its
reasoned moral response to the full mitigating impact of all of the
evidence; neither was the State’s attempted fix–the nullification
instruction–constitutionally sufficient, because “it made the jury
charge as a whole internally contradictory and placed law-abiding
jurors in an impossible situation.” Id. at 799. Under this scheme,
there was still “at the very least, ‘a reasonable likelihood that
the jury . . . applied the challenged instruction in a way that
prevent[ed] the consideration’ of Penry’s mental retardation and
childhood abuse.” Id. (quoting Boyde, 494 U.S. at 380). Because the
State failed to define either special issue “in a way that would
clearly direct the jury to consider fully Penry’s mitigating
evidence as it bears on his personal culpability,” the Texas
special-issues scheme was still unconstitutional as applied to
Penry’s mitigating evidence, and the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals’ conclusion otherwise was an unreasonable application of
25
clearly established federal law. Penry II, 532 U.S. at 803
(emphasis added).
7. Tennard v. Dretke and Smith v. Texas
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tennard, in light of which
this court must assess Nelson’s Penry claim, reaffirms that a jury
cannot be precluded from giving full effect to a defendant’s
mitigating evidence and leaves no doubt that this standard was in
effect at the time that Nelson’s conviction became final.5 The
Supreme Court handed down Tennard on June 24, 2004, reversing a
panel of this court that had applied the aforementioned
“constitutional-relevance” test to deny a COA on a death-row
inmate’s petition for habeas relief on Penry grounds. The Court
explained that the petitioner, who argued that the Texas special
issues sentencing scheme did not enable the sentencer to give full
effect to his mitigating evidence of impaired intellectual
functioning and low I.Q. score, was entitled to a COA, and that the
5
Tennard’s conviction became final when the Supreme Court
denied certiorari on his direct appeal on June 28, 1991. Tennard v.
Texas, 501 U.S. 1259 (1991). Under AEDPA, therefore, the Supreme
Court’s duty in Tennard was to determine whether the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals unreasonably applied federal law that was clearly
established as of June 28, 1991. In light of AEDPA’s mandate, the
Tennard Court’s insistence that a jury be able to consider and give
effect to evidence with mitigating relevance to a defendant’s moral
culpability in addition to the special issues indicates that the
“full-effect” standard was well in place by 1991; indeed, as
explained above, this standard, which is the same standard that the
Court applied in Penry I, was “dictated by Eddings and Lockett.”
Penry I, 492 U.S. at 317. Nelson’s conviction became final in
1994, three years after Tennard’s. Nelson v. Texas, 510 U.S. 1215
(1994).
26
lower courts had erred by applying the Fifth Circuit’s
“constitutional-relevance” test.
Specifically, the Supreme Court excoriated the Fifth Circuit
for invoking its own restrictive gloss on the Court’s Penry I
decision, uniformly applying to Penry claims a heightened-relevance
standard that “has no foundation in the decisions of this Court.”
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 284. The Court then reiterated that the
appropriate-relevance standard in a capital case–as in any other
case–is a low one:
When we addressed directly the relevance standard
applicable to mitigating evidence in capital cases in
McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 440-41 (1990), we
spoke in the most expansive terms. We established that
the “meaning of relevance is no different in the context
of mitigating evidence introduced in a capital sentencing
proceeding” than in any other context, and thus the
general evidentiary standard–“‘“any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the
evidence”’”–applies. Id. at 440 (quoting New Jersey v.
T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 345 (1985)). . . . Thus, a State
cannot bar “the consideration of . . . evidence if the
sentencer could reasonably find that it warrants a
sentence less than death.” 494 U.S. at 441.
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 284-85.
Then, “[o]nce this low threshold for relevance is met, the
‘Eighth Amendment requires that the jury be able to consider and
give effect to’ a capital defendant’s mitigating evidence.” Id. at
285 (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 377-378 (1990)
(citing Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978); Eddings v. Oklahoma,
27
455 U.S. 104 (1982); Penry I, 492 U.S. 302 (1989))); see also Payne
v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 822 (1991) (“We have held that a State
cannot preclude the sentencer from considering ‘any relevant
mitigating evidence’ that the defendant proffers in support of a
sentence less than death . . . [V]irtually no limits are placed on
the relevant mitigating evidence a capital defendant may introduce
concerning his own circumstances.” (quoting Eddings, 455 U.S. at
114)).
The Court emphasized that, in assessing the relevance of
mitigating evidence, a reviewing court should not weigh the
severity or sufficiency of the evidence, except
insofar as evidence of a trivial feature of the
defendant’s character or the circumstances of the crime
is unlikely to have any tendency to mitigate the
defendant’s culpability. See Skipper [v. South Carolina,
476 U.S. 1,] 7, n.2 (“We do not hold that all facets of
the defendant’s ability to adjust to prison life must be
treated as relevant and potentially mitigating. For
example, we have no quarrel with the statement . . . that
‘how often [the defendant] will take a shower’ is
irrelevant to the sentencing determination[.”).] . . .
However, to say that only those features and
circumstances that a panel of federal appellate judges
deems to be “severe” (let alone “uniquely severe”) could
have such a tendency is incorrect. Rather, the question
is simply whether the evidence is of such a character
that it “might serve ‘as a basis for a sentence less than
death,’” Skipper, [467 U.S.] at 5.
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 286-87.
The Court concluded:
the Fifth Circuit’s screening test has no basis in our
precedents and, indeed, is inconsistent with the standard
we have adopted for relevance in the capital sentencing
context. We therefore hold that the Fifth Circuit
28
assessed Tennard’s Penry claim under an improper legal
standard. Cf. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. [322, 341
(2003)] (holding, on certiorari review of the denial of
a COA, that the Fifth Circuit had applied an incorrect
standard by improperly merging the requirements of two
statutory sections).
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 287.
Although the decision in Tennard principally focused on
rejecting the “constitutional-relevance” standard, the Court also
indicated that Tennard’s evidence may have had relevance beyond the
scope of the special issues, and that a jury might have been
precluded from giving effect to that aspect of Tennard’s mitigating
evidence. The Court explained that a COA should have issued because
[t]he relationship between the special issues and
Tennard’s low IQ evidence has the same essential features
as the relationship between the special issues and
Penry’s mental retardation evidence. Impaired
intellectual functioning has mitigating dimension beyond
the impact it has on the individual’s ability to act
deliberately. See Penry I, 492 U.S. at 322. A reasonable
jurist could conclude that the jury might well have given
Tennard’s low IQ evidence aggravating effect in
considering his future dangerousness . . . .
Id. at 288-89.
In its most recent pronouncement on the Penry issue, the
Supreme Court in Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, once again reiterated
that, to comply with the Eighth Amendment, a capital sentencing
scheme must give full effect to all of a defendant’s mitigating
evidence. In a per curiam opinion issued shortly after Tennard, the
Court reversed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ denial of state
habeas relief, holding that the Texas special issues and a
29
supplemental nullification instruction similar to the one at issue
in Penry II did not give full effect to the petitioner’s mitigating
evidence of the petitioner’s (1) learning disabilities; (2) low
I.Q. scores; and (3) childhood abuse and troubled upbringing.
First, the Court held that, in light of Tennard, the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it relied on the Fifth
Circuit’s “constitutional-relevance” test to dispose of the
petitioner’s Penry claim. Second, the Court held that, under its
precedent, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it held
that the special issues and nullification instruction gave
sufficient mitigating effect to the petitioner’s mitigating
evidence. The Court, reviewing its case law, stressed that “[i]n
Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) (Penry II), we held a similar
‘nullification instruction’ constitutionally inadequate because it
did not allow the jury to give ‘full consideration and full effect
to mitigating circumstances’ in choosing the defendant’s
appropriate sentence. Id. at 797 (quoting Johnson v. Texas, 509
U.S. 350, 381 (1993) (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting)).” Smith, 543 U.S.
at 38. The Smith Court therefore once again reaffirmed that the
standard is full consideration and full effect.
The State’s contention that Smith and Penry II are inapposite
to the instant case because they involved a nullification
instruction is not well taken. As we explained above, the
nullification instruction was not an adequate solution to the
30
problem the Court identified in Penry I–namely, that the jurors
could not give Penry’s mitigating evidence full effect through the
special issues. Penry II, 532 U.S. at 797 (“[T]he key under Penry
I is that the jury be able to ‘consider and give effect to [a
defendant’s mitigating] evidence in imposing sentence.’” (emphasis
and alteration in original) (quoting Penry I, 492 U.S. at 319)).
Accordingly, the focus of our inquiry is not whether there was a
nullification instruction, but whether the procedure, whatever it
was, allowed the jury to express its reasoned moral response to the
defendant’s mitigating evidence. See id. And the standard for
making that determination is whether there is a reasonable
likelihood that the procedure precluded the jury from giving full
consideration and full effect to the defendant’s mitigating
evidence.
This review of the relevant Supreme Court case law therefore
establishes that, at the time Nelson’s conviction became final in
1994, the clearly established law as announced by the Supreme Court
was a full-effect standard. The Penry II Court left no doubt that
full effect was the applicable standard, or that this was the
standard that applied in Penry I. The debate has long since been
over. Today, we make clear that we are following the Supreme
Court’s directive and applying the standard it articulated; i.e.,
whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the special issues
precluded the jury from giving full consideration and full effect
31
to the defendant’s mitigating evidence, including evidence that has
mitigating relevance outside the scope of the special issues
because it speaks to a defendant’s moral culpability. This standard
was “dictated by” the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Eddings
and Lockett, see Penry I, 492 U.S. at 317, and Graham and Johnson
are not to the contrary. Moreover, the Court’s most recent
decisions in Tennard and Smith reaffirm that this standard was
clearly established federal law at the time Nelson’s conviction
became final. Accordingly, we turn to the question presented in
this case–whether the state court’s determination that the Texas
capital-sentencing scheme was constitutional as applied in Nelson’s
case was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly
established law as announced by the Supreme Court.
C. Application of Clearly Established Federal Law to Nelson’s
Case
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the special
issues were constitutional as applied to Nelson. Because there is
a reasonable likelihood that the jury was precluded from giving
full effect to Nelson’s mitigating evidence, we hold that the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals’ determination was an unreasonable
application of clearly established law as announced by the Supreme
Court.
1. Nelson’s Mitigating Evidence
The parties agree that, at the punishment phase of the trial,
Nelson presented the following mitigating evidence of: (1) an
32
abusive childhood; (2) substance abuse; (3) troubled relationships
with his brother and with women; (4) having had a child out of
wedlock with whom he was not permitted to have a relationship; and
(5) a mental disorder. Specifically, Nelson offered the testimony
of his father, who described in great detail the emotional abuse
and rejection that Nelson suffered at the hands of his mother while
he was growing up. Nelson’s father explained that Nelson was the
second of two boys, and Nelson’s mother, who had always wanted a
girl, rejected Nelson from birth, refusing to care for him, “change
him or feed him [or] anything.” After Nelson’s parents separated
when Nelson was fourteen years old, his mother completely abandoned
him, leaving and refusing to take him with her.
Nelson also presented testimony from Dr. John Hickman, a
psychiatrist who personally interviewed and assessed Nelson. Dr.
Hickman testified extensively about the symptoms of borderline
personality disorder, which can manifest themselves in “psychotic
outburst[s]” and a “lack of impulse control.” According to Dr.
Hickman, a person with borderline personality disorder has little
insight into his own illness and may “periodically go through an
outburst of feelings which can become very violent, very
destructive,” even though he exhibits normal behavior “75 to 80
percent” of the time. Dr. Hickman noted that Nelson in particular
experiences “a lot of impulse and a lot of raw energy and anger
. . . [that] he has no [insight] into whatsoever” as a result of
his borderline personality disorder.
33
He further explained that borderline personality disorder can
be especially “severe” in cases of maternal abandonment, and, in
this case, Nelson’s abusive upbringing and rejection by his mother
engendered a “rage toward women” that was evidenced by the nature
of the crime that he committed. Dr. Hickman observed that Nelson’s
borderline personality disorder was a consequence of growing up in
a home where Nelson did not learn to control his anger and where he
was subjected to psychologically abusive treatment by his mother,
who told him that “he couldn’t do anything right” and that “she
didn’t want him.” In Dr. Hickman’s judgment, at the time he
committed the crime, Nelson “had a psychotic outburst” and was
under the influence of “either a mental or physical form of duress”
resulting from “his physical and psychological makeup.” Dr. Hickman
also stated that, in addition to being “psychologically abused” by
his mother, Nelson had “some family history which indicates
disregard and abuse for women” and that “it is almost as if he is
trained to be that way.” Additionally, Dr. Hickman noted that
Nelson’s substance abuse likely exacerbated the effects of Nelson’s
borderline personality disorder, describing “eruptive episodes,
generally influenced by alcohol or cocaine, where all that
primitive impulse comes out,” which were “guaranteed to be self-
destructive.” In sum, Dr. Hickman observed that Nelson “has a
morass of anger, hostility, given the combination of a borderline
personality, given stress factors, given alcohol, given cocaine,
all hell is going to break loose with him.”
34
Although Dr. Hickman testified that borderline personality
disorder can be treated in some cases, he indicated that borderline
personality disorder is difficult to treat because persons with
borderline personality disorder do not want to “admit they are weak
and vulnerable” and often refuse to undergo therapy. Dr. Hickman
estimated that in Nelson’s case, it could take at least a year just
to break down Nelson’s “defenses” and convince him to participate
in treatment; after that, Nelson would require “long
psychotherapy–and I’m talking about two to five years. That is
standard for borderline. And . . . medication.” Dr. Hickman
emphasized that this intensive psychotherapy would require “two or
three times a week with . . . a therapist that can work with him”
in addition to “the proper drug medication” and “a strict
environment” where Nelson could “learn internal controls.” Dr.
Hickman noted that, even with such treatment, he could not
guarantee Nelson’s success, and “if he doesn’t get treatment, I
think we can predict dangerousness.”
2. The Special Issues as Applied to Nelson’s Mitigating
Evidence
As a threshold matter, the State contends that Penry and its
progeny apply only to a very narrow set of cases in which the
mitigating evidence is “double-edged,” i.e., has both aggravating
and mitigating effect, and the future-dangerousness special issue
gives the evidence only aggravating effect. Thus, according to the
State, a Penry analysis in this case is not necessary. We disagree.
35
The Supreme Court has never limited the applicability of
Penry–either explicitly or implicitly–to cases involving “double-
edged” mitigating evidence. In Penry I, the Court’s observation
that Penry’s evidence of mental illness was “two-edged” was just
one of many reasons that the special issues were inadequate
vehicles to give Penry’s evidence full mitigating effect; it was
not the determining factor. See Penry I, 492 U.S. at 324 (listing
the “two-edged sword” nature of Penry’s evidence as one of a number
of reasons that the future-dangerousness issue could not give
Penry’s evidence full mitigating effect). Justice O’Connor’s
dissent in Johnson explains that placing too much weight on the
Court’s description of Penry’s evidence as “two-edged”
mischaracterizes the Penry I Court’s reasoning:
The second special issue was not inadequate because
evidence worked only against Penry; it was inadequate
because it did not allow the jury to give full effect to
Penry’s mitigating evidence. Penry, 492 U.S. at 323. Our
discussion of the third special issue–whether the
defendant’s conduct was unreasonable in response to the
provocation–also focused on the inability of a juror to
express the view that Penry lacked “the moral culpability
to be sentenced to death” in answering the question. Id.
at 324-25. The point of Penry is clear: A death sentence
resulting from application of the Texas special issues
cannot be upheld unless the jurors are able to consider
fully a defendant’s mitigating evidence. Accord, id. at
355 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part) (The Court today holds that “the constitutionality
turns on whether the [special] questions allow mitigating
factors not only to be considered . . . , but also to be
given effect in all possible ways, including ways that
the questions do not permit”).
36
See Johnson, 509 U.S. at 386 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). Indeed,
Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented from the Court’s decision in
Tennard arguing that Tennard’s evidence was not “two-edged.”
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 292-93 (“In either case–contrary to Penry
I–the evidence could be given mitigating effect in the second
special issue. In short, low intelligence is not the same as mental
retardation and does not necessarily create the Penry I “two-edged
sword.”). A majority of the Court declined to accept that argument
in Tennard and, therefore, we cannot accept it here.
Further, the Court has indicated that Penry applies–or at
least potentially could apply–in cases involving evidence that is
not double-edged. See, e.g., Smith, 543 U.S. 37 (reversing the
state court’s denial of habeas relief because the special issues
could not give full effect to mitigating evidence of low I.Q. and
troubled upbringing); Tennard, 542 U.S. 274 (holding that habeas
petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim based on
mitigating evidence of low I.Q. and impaired intellectual
functioning). In short, the State urges this court to wrench one
component of the Court’s reasoning in Penry I out of context and
use it as a dispositive screening test in our assessment of Penry
claims. In effect, the State asks this court to develop another
“restrictive gloss on Penry I,” similar to the “constitutional-
relevance” test that the Court struck down in Tennard. Tennard, 542
U.S. at 283. The Court has never used the consideration of whether
37
evidence is double-edged as a single-issue screening test as the
State urges us to do; and, given the Court’s strong admonition in
Tennard, we decline to do so. Consequently, we turn now to the
State’s alternative argument that Nelson’s evidence could be
adequately considered through the two special issues.
a. Deliberateness Special Issue
Nelson’s mitigating evidence of borderline personality
disorder and abandonment by his mother had relevance beyond the
scope of the deliberateness special issue. As the Supreme Court
observed in Penry I, a reasonable juror could have concluded that,
while the murder was deliberate, Nelson was less morally culpable
as a result of his borderline personality disorder and abusive
childhood than a murderer without such a mental illness and similar
upbringing might have been. See Penry I, 492 U.S. at 323-24; see
also Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986) (Powell,
J., concurring in judgment) (stating that evidence concerning a
defendant’s “emotional history . . . bear[s] directly on the
fundamental justice of imposing capital punishment”). Because a
major mitigating thrust of evidence of a mental disorder and an
abusive childhood is that such afflictions could reduce an
offender’s moral culpability, it is “reasonably likely” that a
juror would not have been able to give full effect to his “reasoned
moral judgment” regarding the full mitigating impact of Nelson’s
evidence through the narrowly worded deliberateness instruction.
38
See, e.g., Penry II, 532 U.S. at 797; Penry I, 492 U.S. at 322.
Significantly, the Supreme Court has never held that the
deliberateness issue alone is broad enough to give full effect to
mitigating evidence that also bears on a defendant’s moral
culpability; indeed the Court’s most recent opinion in Smith v.
Texas suggests the contrary. There, the Court characterized Smith’s
evidence as follows:
(1) he had been diagnosed with potentially organic
learning disabilities and speech handicaps at an early
age; (2) he had a verbal IQ score of 75 and a full IQ of
78 and, as a result, had been in special education
classes throughout most of his time in school; (3)
despite his low IQ and learning disabilities, his
behavior at school was often exemplary; (4) his father
was a drug addict who was involved with gang violence and
other criminal activities, and regularly stole money from
family members to support a drug addiction; and (5) he
was only 19 when he committed the crime.
Smith, 542 U.S. at 41. Considering the nature of this evidence, the
Court noted that, “just as in Penry II, the burden of proof on the
State was tied by law to findings of deliberateness and future
dangerousness that had little, if anything, to do with the
mitigation evidence petitioner presented.” Id. at 48. Likewise,
Nelson’s mitigating evidence had relevance beyond the
deliberateness special issue insofar as it bore on his moral
culpability for the crime. Consequently, although the jury may have
been able to give partial effect to this evidence through the
deliberateness special issue, there is a reasonable likelihood that
39
it was unable to give full effect to this evidence, because it had
relevance beyond whether Nelson acted deliberately.
b. Future-Dangerousness Special Issue
Likewise, the future-dangerousness special issue cannot give
Nelson’s evidence full mitigating effect. The jury heard
conflicting evidence about the treatability of Nelson’s borderline
personality disorder and about the efficacy of any possible
treatment. According to the expert testimony, even assuming that
Nelson’s borderline personality disorder were treatable, success
would depend on many factors. Based on this evidence, the jury
could have easily concluded that it was unlikely that Nelson would
successfully complete treatment. The State’s expert, Dr. Grigson,
testified that there was insufficient information to make a
diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, but repeatedly
emphasized that “in [his] opinion there is no question whatsoever
that [Nelson] will commit future acts of danger.” In contrast,
Nelson’s expert, Dr. Hickman, diagnosed Nelson with borderline
personality disorder. He further testified that, with treatment
consisting of incarceration, two to five years of intensive
psychotherapy two to three times a week, medication, and refraining
from drug and alcohol abuse, Nelson may not be continuing threat.
He opined that if Nelson did not receive treatment, he would pose
a danger to society. He also explained that “the last thing a
borderline wants to do is admit they are weak and vulnerable,” and
40
thus borderline patients often resist treatment. Indeed, in its own
closing, the State emphasized the strong possibility that Nelson
would not receive the treatment he needed to keep his borderline
personality disorder in check, and even if he did receive such
treatment, there were no guarantees that the therapy would be
effective to prevent future violence:
Dr. Hickman said, if, if, if, if he is imprisoned long
enough, if he undergoes psychotherapy, if he chooses to
take his medication, and if he leaves dope and alcohol
alone, then maybe, maybe he won’t be a future danger.
Look at Special Issue Number Two, ladies and gentlemen.
There is not an asterisk next to that, there is not
something referring you down here that says if, if, if,
if. We look at the defendant right now, and right now
even their witness [said], yes, he may be a danger.
Based on the expert testimony at trial, the jury might have
concluded that Nelson could be treated, and therefore, it could
have given some effect to this mitigating evidence within the
context of the future-dangerousness special issue. But if the jury
concluded that the condition was not treatable or that treatment
was improbable, as the State argued, it would necessarily have to
answer “yes” to the special issue. Just as in Penry I and Penry II,
it is likely that a juror considering Nelson’s evidence of
borderline personality disorder would have felt that he could give
the evidence only one possible effect via the future-dangerousness
issue: Such a juror would have seen the evidence as only
aggravating, because Nelson’s borderline personality disorder and
the difficulty of treating it increase the likelihood that Nelson
41
will act out violently again. Consequently, there would be no
vehicle to give mitigating effect to his evidence of borderline
personality disorder, i.e., no way for the jury to express its
conclusion that even though he is likely to be dangerous in the
future, his mental illness makes him unworthy of the death penalty.
Cf. Penry I, 492 U.S. at 302 (“[A] reasonable juror could well have
believed that there was no vehicle for expressing the view that
Penry did not deserve to be sentenced to death based upon his
mitigating evidence.”). And, also similar to Penry I, the jury was
likely precluded from interpreting the future-dangerousness issue
in a way that gave effect to the major mitigating thrust of the
evidence, that it tends to lessen Nelson’s moral culpability for
the crime. See Penry I, 492 U.S. at 322-24.
The State and the dissenting opinions of Chief Judge Jones and
Judge Owen argue that the evidence at issue here is more comparable
to the evidence of youth at issue in Johnson and Graham.
Specifically, they contend that, because borderline personality
disorder can be a “transient” condition like youth, a jury could
believe that Nelson would be less dangerous in the future, thereby
giving full mitigating effect to the evidence. We disagree. This
argument erroneously analogizes evidence of youth and evidence of
mental illness. The Supreme Court in Johnson held that the future-
dangerousness issue could give effect to both mitigating aspects of
youth–likelihood of future violent behavior and moral
42
culpability–due to the uniquely transient nature of youth. See
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 368 (“The relevance of youth as a mitigating
factor derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth
are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and
recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside. . . .
[T]here is ample room in the assessment of future dangerousness for
a juror to take account of the difficulties of youth as a
mitigating force in the sentencing determination.”); see also
Eddings, 455 U.S. at 115 (“[Y]outh is more than a chronological
fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most
susceptible to influence and to psychological damage.”). In this
sense, the Supreme Court, which has never endorsed the extension of
Johnson and Graham to treatable mental illness, has treated youth
as sui generis, because it is a condition that is certain to pass.6
In contrast, as acknowledged by Nelson’s own expert witness, there
was no guarantee that Nelson’s borderline personality disorder
6
The sui generis nature of youth in the death penalty context
is perhaps best evidenced by the Supreme Court’s categorical
holding in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), that the
Constitution prohibits the execution of persons who were under
eighteen years of age at the time of their crime. See id. at 569
(noting that three unique characteristics of youth mitigate
juveniles’ moral culpability for certain behavior: “[a] lack of
maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility[, which]
. . . often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and
decisions”; increased “vulnerab[ility] or susceptib[ility] to
negative influences and outside pressures, including peer
pressure”; and “that the character of a juvenile is not as well
formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are
more transitory, less fixed”) (citing Johnson, 509 U.S. at 367;
Eddings, 455 U.S. at 115).
43
would diminish over time. Dr. Hickman noted that, although
borderline personality disorder is treatable, success is by no
means certain and is expressly conditioned on intensive therapy
that, a juror could conclude, the Texas prison system is unlikely
to provide. In fact, Dr. Hickman’s trial testimony indicated that,
because of the severity of borderline personality disorder and
patients’ common resistance to therapy, successful treatment is
often the exception rather than the rule. Unlike a jury considering
evidence of youth, therefore, a reasonable likelihood existed that
a jury considering Nelson’s mitigating evidence of borderline
personality disorder would have felt foreclosed from giving full
mitigating effect to Nelson’s evidence of his disorder via the
future-dangerousness issue. Thus, based on the principles
announced in Penry I and its progeny, the future-dangerousness
special issue, like the deliberateness special issue, provided a
constitutionally insufficient vehicle to allow a jury to express
its reasoned moral response and give full effect to Nelson’s
mitigating evidence. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s holding
to the contrary is an unreasonable application of clearly
established federal law as announced by the Supreme Court.
This is not simply a matter of disagreement with the state
court’s conclusion that the jury could consider and give effect to
Nelson’s mitigating evidence through the special-issues sentencing
scheme. We are mindful that under AEDPA a federal court may not
44
grant habeas relief simply because it disagrees with the state
court’s resolution of an issue; it may grant relief only if the
state court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable
application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Indeed, Chief Judge Jones’s dissent invokes
this standard, asserting that our approach to the future-
dangerousness issue improperly “relies upon a string of
hypotheticals to create [a] Penry violation” and adopts an
“attenuated theory of the jury deliberations [that] extends Penry
I far beyond its intended boundaries.” Chief Judge Jones’s Dissent
at 21 n.19; see also Judge Owen’s Dissent. But rather than
extending the reach of Penry I or any other case in violation of
the AEDPA standard of review, our approach merely follows the
Supreme Court’s longstanding directive to determine only “whether
the evidence is of such a character that it ‘might serve as a basis
for a sentence less than death,’” which was clearly established
federal law at the time that Nelson’s conviction became final.
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 287 (quoting Skipper, 467 U.S. at 5) (emphasis
added).
In contrast, the alternative approach, upon which the
dissenting opinions of Chief Judge Jones and Judge Owen base their
conclusions that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not
unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, would require
us, sitting as a federal appellate habeas court, to weigh the
45
evidence presented at sentencing in a manner that the Supreme Court
in Tennard held was an unreasonable application of clearly
established federal law at least as far back as 1991. See id. at
286-87. Like Nelson’s case, Tennard reached the Supreme Court on
federal habeas review and was governed by the AEDPA standard. As
noted above, we measure clearly established federal law for AEDPA
purposes as of the date that the defendant’s conviction became
final. While Tennard’s conviction became final in 1991, Nelson’s
conviction did not become final until 1994. See supra note 4.
Therefore, the principles that the Supreme Court in Tennard held
had been clearly established in 1991 were certainly clearly
established by the time that Nelson’s conviction became final in
1994. Although Chief Judge Jones and Judge Owen correctly recite
the AEDPA standard in their dissenting opinions, they simply fail
to accept that Tennard--which stood for the propositions that (1)
a reviewing court may not reweigh or reassess the mitigating
evidence presented at sentencing, and (2) a jury must be able to
give effect to the impact of that mitigating evidence on the
defendant’s moral culpability via the special issues--also set
forth the federal law that was clearly established for the purposes
of Nelson’s case.
Specifically, the dissenting opinions of Chief Judge Jones and
Judge Owen run afoul of Tennard by assuming that the jury in
Nelson’s case found that Nelson’s borderline personality disorder
46
was treatable, and that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would
therefore not have acted unreasonably in treating it as akin to the
mitigating evidence of youth at issue in Graham and Johnson.
However, we know from the record only that the jury determined that
Nelson was a future danger after hearing conflicting expert
testimony about whether he suffered from borderline personality
disorder and, if so, whether it could be treated. Despite the
purportedly definitive reading of the record contained in Chief
Judge Jones’s dissent, we cannot be certain of the precise reasons
for the jury’s future-dangerousness determination. Instead, we know
that the jury could have arrived at its conclusion for any of the
following reasons: (1) the jury believed that Nelson suffered from
borderline personality disorder but that the disorder was not
treatable; (2) the jury believed that Nelson suffered from
borderline personality disorder that was treatable but that some
other factor rendered Nelson a future danger; or (3) the jury did
not believe that Nelson actually suffered from borderline
personality disorder. To conclude that the mental illness at issue
was treatable in the face of these multiple possibilities, the
dissenting opinions of Chief Judge Jones and Judge Owen reassess
and reweigh the evidence presented at sentencing, even though we,
47
sitting as a federal appellate habeas court, have no way of knowing
why the jury determined that Nelson was a future danger.7
Weighing the evidence in this manner violates the Supreme
Court’s express admonition in Tennard that we not substitute our
own interpretation of the evidence for that of the jury or assess
the strength of the mitigating evidence presented except “insofar
as evidence of a trivial feature of the defendant’s character or
the circumstances of the crime is unlikely to have any tendency to
mitigate the defendant’s culpability.” Tennard, 542 U.S. at 286.
Just as the Supreme Court in Penry I made no determination as to
whether the jury actually believed that Penry was mentally retarded
based on the conflicting trial evidence, we may not conduct an
7
Compare Johnson, in which the Supreme Court singled out
youth, as opposed to other conditions that could be transitory,
because its ephemeral nature is bound up in its mitigating impact
such that a juror could not reasonably assess youth as a mitigating
factor without taking into account this aspect of transience. See
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 368 (emphasizing that the impact of youth on
the defendant’s conduct “is not independent of an assessment of
personal culpability”). Because this transient quality is so
subsumed within the mitigating relevance of youth, the Court did
not inquire whether the jury might have found that Johnson was
likely to mature as he grew up before it held that the jury could
give full effect to youth through the future-dangerousness issue;
the undisputed chronological fact of the defendant’s age was
enough. In contrast, under the approach favored by the dissenting
opinions of Chief Judge Jones and Judge Owen in this case, when
presented with mitigating evidence of a possibly treatable mental
illness, an appellate habeas court must conduct such an inquiry
into the jury’s findings and weigh the evidence to determine
whether the illness is treatable. Perhaps for this very reason, the
Supreme Court, which spoke about youth in very specific terms in
Johnson, has never extended Johnson’s reasoning to any other
mitigating evidence--including possibly treatable mental illness--
that might have transient characteristics.
48
independent review of the conflicting evidence in this case to make
a determination as to whether the jury actually believed that
Nelson’s mental illness was treatable. In short, under Tennard,
which clarified the clearly established law in this area as of
1991, we may not graft a treatability test based on our view of the
strength of the evidence onto the low relevance threshold as the
dissenting opinions of Chief Judge Jones and Judge Owen propose,
and neither may the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Rather, the
only question we may ask regarding the jury’s interpretation of the
mitigating evidence presented at trial is “simply whether the
evidence is of such a character that it ‘might serve as a basis for
a sentence less than death.’” Id. at 287 (quoting Skipper, 467 U.S.
at 5) (emphasis added).
Further, the Supreme Court has made it clear in Boyde and in
Johnson (both issued before Nelson’s conviction became final) that
once the low relevance threshold is satisfied, rather than
inquiring into or second guessing the jury’s interpretation of the
trial evidence, all a court must determine is whether a reasonable
likelihood exists that the jury applied the instructions in a
manner that precluded it from giving effect to the defendant’s
mitigating evidence as it pertains to the defendant’s moral
culpability. In the instant case, given the conflicting testimony
regarding the treatability of Nelson’s mental illness, there is
certainly a reasonable likelihood that the jury felt precluded from
49
giving full effect to the impact of the evidence on Nelson’s moral
culpability via the future-dangerousness issue because it found
that Nelson’s illness could not be treated. See Johnson, 509 U.S.
at 367 (explaining that the Boyde “reasonable likelihood standard
does not require that the defendant prove that it was more likely
than not that the jury was prevented from giving effect to the
evidence”).
Therefore, rather than “extend[ing] Penry I far beyond its
intended boundaries, without instructions from the Supreme Court,”
Chief Judge Jones’s Dissent at 21 n.19, our approach is firmly
grounded in Supreme Court precedent and consistent with the AEDPA
standard of review. The alternative upon which the dissenting
opinions of Chief Judge Jones and Judge Owen rely to affirm the
state court’s denial of habeas relief in this case--that we scour
the trial record for evidence of treatability and substitute our
interpretation of the evidence for that of the jury’s--is not
merely incorrect, but is an unreasonable application of clearly
established federal law as announced by the Supreme Court. See
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 288-89; see also Smith, 543 U.S. at 38; Penry
II, 532 U.S. at 803; Penry I, 492 U.S. at 323; Skipper, 467 U.S. at
5.
This case is therefore different from the Supreme Court’s
recent decision in Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 147 (2005), which
Judge Clement discusses in her dissenting opinion. In Payton, the
50
Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief
to a death-row petitioner who challenged the constitutionality of
California’s “factor (k)” jury instruction, concluding that the
Ninth Circuit did not give proper deference to the state court’s
decision. Specifically, the Court held that “[i]t was not
unreasonable for the state court to determine that the jury most
likely believed that the evidence in mitigation, while within the
reach of the factor (k) instruction, was simply too insubstantial
to overcome the arguments for imposing the death penalty.” Id.
(emphasis added). In Payton, the state court held that the
mitigating evidence of the defendant’s religious conversion fell
within the reach of the catch-all instruction directing the jury to
consider “‘[a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of
the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime,’”
although the prosecutor argued to the jury that it could not
consider this evidence. Payton, 544 U.S. at 137 (alteration in
original) (quoting Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 (West 1988)). In
reversing the Ninth Circuit’s determination that the state court
erred in denying habeas relief, the Supreme Court emphasized that
the state court’s holding was a reasonable interpretation of its
prior decision in Boyde, 494 U.S. 370, in which the Court upheld
the validity of the factor (k) instruction in similar
circumstances. See Payton, 544 U.S. at 144 (“As the California
Supreme Court recognized, like in Boyde, for the jury to have
51
believed it could not consider Payton’s mitigation evidence, it
would have had to believe that the penalty phase served virtually
no purpose at all.”). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit had deviated
from the deferential AEDPA standard when it reversed the state
court’s determination.
Nevertheless, Judge Clement’s dissenting opinion, which relies
on Payton to conclude that this court should defer to the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals’s denial of habeas relief, fails to
recognize that “[t]he [AEDPA] standard is demanding but not
insatiable; . . . ‘[d]eference does not by definition preclude
relief.’” Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S. Ct. 2317, 2325
(2005) (third alteration in original) (quoting Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003)). In contrast to the
circumstances at issue in Payton, Nelson’s mitigating evidence
clearly has relevance beyond the issues of deliberateness and
future dangerousness under Penry I and its progeny. If the jury
concluded that Nelson was likely to be dangerous in the future
based on his mental disorder and abusive childhood, but also
concluded that this evidence rendered him less morally culpable, it
had no way to give effect to the mitigating aspect of that evidence
through the two special issues. See Smith, 543 U.S. at 38; Tennard,
542 U.S. at 288-89; Penry II, 532 U.S. at 803; Penry I, 492 U.S. at
323. Moreover, Tennard precludes a reviewing court from reweighing
the evidence presented at trial to determine whether the alleged
52
mitigating circumstance is treatable and therefore transient.
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 286-87. Thus, unlike the state court’s
determination in Payton, where the Supreme Court in Boyde had
previously held that the challenged California instruction was
broad enough to allow the jury to consider the impact of the
mitigating evidence on the defendant’s moral culpability, it was
unreasonable for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in this case
to conclude that Nelson’s mitigating evidence was within the reach
of the jury through the narrow special issues, given the law
clearly established by the Supreme Court in Penry I and its
progeny.
Finally, in support of its argument that evidence of a
potentially treatable mental disorder should be analyzed similarly
to the Court’s consideration of youth, the State relies on Fifth
Circuit case law that has erroneously interpreted Penry as
requiring that the mitigating evidence be given only “some effect.”
Specifically, it relies on this court’s opinion in Lucas v.
Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1998), in which the panel held
that the special issues gave constitutionally sufficient effect to
Lucas’s evidence of schizophrenia coupled with a troubled
upbringing. See id. at 1083 (“[The] prospect of medical treatment
placed the evidence of his mental illness and abusive childhood
within ‘the effective reach of the sentencer’ as a potential
mitigating factor with respect to the second issue, that is, the
53
jury could have considered whether, in an institutional setting,
the probability that Lucas posed as a future danger to society was
not so great as to merit imposition of the death sentence.”). In
reaching this conclusion, Lucas cited the Supreme Court’s decisions
in Johnson and Graham for the proposition that “Penry’s application
has since been limited to that narrow class of situations in which
the petitioner’s mitigating evidence was placed beyond the jury’s
effective reach,” and that the evidence in that case was within the
jury’s effective reach, because the jury could have given it
partial effect. Id. at 1082. As explained above, the Supreme Court
has clearly held that the standard is full effect. Thus, continued
reliance on the partial-effect methodology is erroneous, because
that standard fails to take into account, as Penry I and its
progeny require, a jury’s inability to give mitigating effect to a
defendant’s moral culpability via the future-dangerousness issue.
See Smith, 543 U.S. at 38; Tennard, 542 U.S. at 288-89; Penry II,
532 U.S. at 803; Penry I, 492 U.S. at 323. Moreover, and most
importantly, AEDPA requires us to determine whether the state court
unreasonably applied “clearly established federal law as announced
by the Supreme Court,” not by the Fifth Circuit. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1). Accordingly, to the extent that this court’s cases
have applied a less-than-full-effect standard to Penry claims in
the past, i.e., to the extent that past cases failed to account for
the jury’s ability to give effect to the impact of mitigating
54
evidence on a defendant’s moral culpability via the special issues,
those cases were based on an erroneous interpretation of Supreme
Court precedent. See Smith, 543 U.S. at 38 (holding that a
sentencing scheme that fails to “give full consideration and full
effect to mitigating circumstances in choosing the defendant’s
appropriate sentence” is “constitutionally inadequate” under Penry
I and its progeny) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
3. Sufficiency of Nelson’s Mitigation Evidence
We also reject the argument that Nelson’s evidence of
borderline personality disorder is insufficient to warrant relief
based on Penry. The Supreme Court has recognized that
gravity has a place in the relevance analysis, insofar as
evidence of a trivial feature of the defendant’s
character or the circumstances of the crime is unlikely
to have any tendency to mitigate the defendant’s
culpability. See Skipper [v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1,]
7, n.2 (“We do not hold that all facets of the
defendant’s ability to adjust to prison life must be
treated as relevant and potentially mitigating. For
example, we have no quarrel with the statement . . . that
‘how often [the defendant] will take a shower’ is
irrelevant to the sentencing determination[.”).].
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 286-87. The Tennard Court was discussing
evidence that had no probative worth in the jury’s consideration of
a defendant’s moral culpability, not evidence that the jury may
choose to believe or disbelieve. In contrast, the strength of
Nelson’s evidence of borderline personality disorder and abusive
childhood “goes to the credibility of [Nelson’s] mitigation
55
evidence, which should be judged by the jury in answering effective
supplemental instructions addressing the mitigation evidence.” Blue
v. Cockrell, 298 F.3d 318, 322 (5th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other
grounds by Tennard, 542 U.S. 274. Further, any argument that this
court should dispose of Nelson’s Penry claim on grounds that the
evidence is insufficient endorses precisely the type of judicial
evidence-weighing that the Court in Tennard expressly warned
against:
[T]o say that only those features and circumstances that
a panel of federal appellate judges deems to be “severe”
(let alone “uniquely severe”) could have such a tendency
is incorrect. Rather, the question is simply whether the
evidence is of such a character that it “might serve ‘as
a basis for a sentence less than death,’” Skipper, [467
U.S.] at 5.
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 286-87. Nowhere does Tennard prescribe (or
even allow for) a balancing test that weighs the strength of the
mitigating evidence against that of the aggravating evidence. Such
reasoning runs afoul of the low relevance standard that the Court
emphasized in Tennard, i.e., any tendency to mitigate the
defendant’s culpability, and comes perilously close to applying a
heightened-relevance test similar to the one that the Court struck
down in Tennard. Accordingly, we also reject this argument.
4. Harmless Error
56
Finally, we reject the State’s argument that any Penry error
in this case is subject to harmless-error analysis under Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 622-23 (1993), which applies to error
that is “amenable to harmless-error analysis because it ‘may . . .
be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence
presented in order to determine [the effect it had on the trial].’”
Id. at 629 (omission and alteration in original) (quoting Arizona
v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309 (1991)). The State advances this
harmless-error theory for the very first time on en banc rehearing
in a discussion that consumes less than a page of its brief; it did
not argue the applicability of harmless error before this court
during Nelson’s original habeas appeal, before the Supreme Court on
certiorari review, or before this court when we initially
reconsidered Nelson’s habeas appeal on remand in light of Tennard.
It was not until a concurring panel member in the most recent
Nelson panel opinion suggested that Brecht might be applicable that
the State argued harmless error in its en banc brief. The State’s
failure to argue this point prior to now is understandable because
the Supreme Court has never applied a harmless-error analysis to a
Penry claim or given any indication that harmless error might apply
in its long line of post-Furman cases addressing the jury’s ability
to give full effect to a capital defendant’s mitigating evidence.
See generally Tennard, 542 U.S. 274; Penry II, 532 U.S. 782; Penry
I, 492 U.S. 302; Eddings, 455 U.S. 104; Lockett, 438 U.S. 586.
57
Indeed, the Penry II Court applied the Brecht harmless-error test
to Penry’s claim that the prosecution’s use of a psychiatrist’s
report violated his Fifth Amendment rights, see Penry II, 532 U.S.
at 795. Conspicuously absent from the discussion regarding Penry’s
Eighth Amendment claim, however, is any mention of the harmless-
error test in either the majority or the dissenting opinions.
Implicit in the Court’s failure to apply harmless error in
cases where the jury has been precluded from giving effect to a
defendant’s mitigating evidence is the recognition that a Penry
error deprives the jury of a “vehicle for expressing its ‘reasoned
moral response to the defendant’s background, character, and
crime,’” which precludes it from making “‘a reliable determination
that death is the appropriate sentence.’” Penry II, 532 U.S. at 797
(quoting Penry I, 492 U.S. at 328, 319) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (emphasis added). This reasoned moral judgment that a jury
must make in determining whether death is the appropriate sentence
differs from those fact-bound judgments made in response to the
special issues. It also differs from those at issue in cases
involving defective jury instructions in which the Court has found
harmless-error review to be appropriate. Cf. Neder v. United
States, 527 U.S. 1, 8-15 (1991) (applying harmless-error review
where the jury instructions omitted an element of the offense,
reasoning that, given the evidence presented, the verdict would
have been the same had the jury been properly instructed); Johnson
58
v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468-69 (1997) (applying harmless-
error review where the jury instructions omitted the materiality
element of the perjury charge, noting that the error did not
warrant correction in light of the “overwhelming” and
“uncontroverted” evidence supporting materiality). Given that the
entire premise of the Penry line of cases rests on the possibility
that the jury’s reasoned moral response might have been different
from its answers to the special issues had it been able to fully
consider and give effect to the defendant’s mitigating evidence, it
would be wholly inappropriate for an appellate court, in effect, to
substitute its own moral judgment for the jury’s in these cases.
See Tennard, 542 U.S. at 286-87 (“[T]o say that only those features
and circumstances that a panel of federal appellate judges deems to
be ‘severe’ (let alone ‘uniquely severe’) could have such a
tendency [to serve as a basis less than death] is incorrect.
Rather, the question is simply whether the evidence is of such a
character that it ‘might serve “as a basis for a sentence less than
death”’ (quoting Skipper, 467 U.S. at 5)); cf. Sullivan v.
Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281 (1993) (refusing to apply harmless
error where the jury was improperly instructed on the burden of
proof at the guilt/innocence phase, noting that “the essential
connection to a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ factual finding cannot
be made where the instructional error consists of a misdescription
of the burden of proof, which vitiates all the jury’s findings. A
59
reviewing court can only engage in pure speculation–its view of
what a reasonable jury would have done. And when it does that, ‘the
wrong entity judge[s] the defendant guilty’” (quoting Rose v.
Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578 (1986)).
Therefore, given the Supreme Court’s refusal to allow an
appellate court to substitute its own moral judgment for a moral
judgment that the jury was unable to make in a Penry case, we
decline to do so now.8
III. CONCLUSION
At the time that Nelson’s conviction became final, the Supreme
Court had clearly established that the relevant inquiry is whether
there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury would interpret the
Texas special issues in a manner that precluded it from fully
considering and giving full effect to all of the defendant’s
mitigating evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that
there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury was precluded from
giving full consideration and full effect to Nelson’s mitigating
evidence via the Texas special issues; therefore the state court’s
8
The State’s reliance on Calderon v. Coleman, 525 U.S. 141
(1998), in support of its argument that the Brecht harmless-error
test is applicable is misplaced. Coleman involved a jury
instruction that gave the jury inaccurate information on the
governor’s power to commute a sentence, which the lower court found
might have misled the jury and distracted it from the mitigating
evidence presented. Coleman is not at all comparable to cases
involving Penry violations, where the jury is precluded from giving
its reasoned moral response to the defendant’s mitigating evidence.
60
determination that the special issues were constitutional as
applied to Nelson’s case was unreasonable. Accordingly, we REVERSE
the district court’s denial of habeas relief and REMAND with
instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus.
61
DENNIS, CIRCUIT JUDGE, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT AND ASSIGNING
ADDITIONAL REASONS.
In this case we must decide whether petitioner, Billy Ray
Nelson, was sentenced to death in violation of the Eighth Amendment
because the jury was not instructed that it could consider and give
effect to his mitigating evidence by deciding between the death
penalty or a lesser sentence of life imprisonment. The three-judge
panel of this court concluded that Nelson’s death penalty must be
affirmed, but its members did not agree upon a majority rationale
or opinion. Chief Judge Jones issued an opinion concluding that the
pre-1991 Texas capital sentencing statute as applied to Nelson’s
mitigating evidence and case did not violate the Eighth Amendment
and affirming the district court’s judgment denying Nelson’s federal
habeas corpus petition. I filed an opinion concurring in that
result, concluding that, under the Supreme Court’s decisions in
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (“Penry I”) and other cases,
because Nelson had introduced relevant mitigating evidence of
impairment by mental disease, childhood abuse, and chemical abuse
and dependency, the State’s use of the pre-1991 Texas statutory
scheme to sentence him to death violated his constitutional rights.
However, I concluded that under the harmless error test of Brecht
v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), the constitutional violation was
harmless error. Judge Stewart also concurred in the result, but he
did not join either opinion or assign reasons.
62
After rehearing the case en banc, the majority of this court
has now decided that the application of the pre-1991 Texas statutory
capital sentencing scheme to Nelson’s case violated the Eighth
Amendment and that this violation cannot be disregarded as harmless
error. I join fully in the majority’s conclusions and agree
substantially with its reasons. The majority’s analysis of Nelson’s
Penry I claim is similar to that set forth in my separate panel
opinions here and in other cases.1 Accordingly, I join the
majority’s decision and assign additional reasons hereafter.
On the harmless error issue, I acknowledge my mistake at the
panel level in undertaking a harmless error analysis of the
constitutional defect in this case. After considering the parties’
briefs and conducting my own additional research, I now see that (1)
the State waived its harmless error argument by not urging it prior
to this en banc rehearing and (2) the constitutional deficiency in
the capital sentencing mechanism as applied to this case was a
structural defect, not a mere constitutional trial error, and
1
See, e.g., Cole v. Dretke, 443 F.3d 441, 442-51 (5th Cir.
2006) (Dennis, J., dissenting); Nelson v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 282,
288-309 (5th Cir. 2006) (Dennis, J., concurring in the judgment);
Robertson v. Cockrell, 325 F.3d 243, 274-80 (5th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (Dennis, J., dissenting); Tennard v. Cockrell, 284 F.3d 591,
597-604 (5th Cir. 2002) (Dennis, J., dissenting); Penry v. Johnson,
215 F.3d 504, 513-16 (5th Cir. 2000) (Dennis, J., dissenting). I am
grateful to my law clerks who worked with me on these opinions and
especially to three, Kevin Kneupper, Jelani Jefferson, and Bradley
Meissner, who helped in preparing this en banc concurring opinion.
63
therefore cannot be subjected to harmless error analysis.2 The
reasons for these conclusions are set forth in the final section of
this opinion.
1. The Eighth Amendment Requirement Of Individualized Sentencing
Obliges States, Including Texas, To Enable Capital Sentencers
To Select The Appropriate Penalty After Full Consideration Of
The Defendant’s Mitigation Evidence.
The Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional
requirements regarding individualized sentencing began in 1976, when
the Court issued a series of major decisions concerning the
constitutionality of the death penalty that altered the fundamentals
of the Court’s death penalty jurisprudence.3 These cases dealt with
death penalty statutes enacted by various states in response to the
Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972),
which had previously invalidated the death penalty. None of the
2
In my dissent from a previous decision, I reached the same
conclusion with respect to the Penry I violation in that case,
i.e., that it was a structural defect, not a trial error, and
therefore could not be subjected to harmless error analysis. See
Hernandez v. Johnson, 248 F.3d 344, 378-81 (5th Cir. 2001) (Dennis,
J., dissenting). Later, however, I became dissuaded of that view
by my imperfect understanding of the relationship between the
Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (1993),
Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990), Calderon v. Coleman, 525
U.S. 141 (1998), and the Court’s structural defect/harmless error
jurisprudence. After additional study and a better understanding of
these Supreme Court decisions, I have returned to my original view
that the type of constitutional violation here is a structural
defect, not a trial error. I have set forth the reasons for my
error and the need for its correction in the last section of this
opinion dealing with the harmless error question.
3
See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Proffitt v.
Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976);
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976); Roberts v.
Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976).
64
five cases produced a majority opinion, but several major, enduring
principles nevertheless emerged from these cases. First, states
cannot make the imposition of the death penalty mandatory from any
class of crimes. See Woodson, 428 U.S. at 302-305; Roberts, 428
U.S. at 335-36; see also Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66, 74 (1987).
Second, state death penalty statutes must limit and guide the
sentencer’s discretion to impose the death penalty in order to
prevent its arbitrary and capricious application. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 360 (1993) (“In the five cases, the
controlling joint opinion of three Justices reaffirmed the principle
of Furman that ‘discretion must be suitably directed and limited so
as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious
action.’”) (quoting Gregg, 428 U.S. at 189). Third, the capital
sentencer must be allowed to consider and give effect to the unique
circumstances of the individual defendant and his particular crime
when determining the appropriate sentence. See, e.g., Shuman, 483
U.S. at 74 (“In the two cases striking down as unconstitutional
mandatory capital-sentencing statutes, the opinions stressed that
one of the fatal flaws in those sentencing procedures was their
failure to permit presentation of mitigating circumstances for the
consideration of the sentencing authority.”). These underlying
principles have continued to guide the Supreme Court’s death penalty
jurisprudence.
Prior to Penry I, and certainly before Nelson’s conviction
became final in 1994, the relevant Supreme Court decisions had
65
clearly established the Eighth Amendment requirement of
individualized sentencing in capital cases. See, e.g., McCleskey
v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 303-04 (1987) (noting that “the Court has
imposed a number of requirements on the capital sentencing process
to ensure that capital sentencing decisions rest on the
individualized inquiry contemplated in Gregg” and stating that “the
Constitution limits a State’s ability to narrow a sentencer’s
discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to
decline to impose the death sentence”); Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S.
862, 879 (1983) (“What is important at the selection stage is an
individualized determination on the basis of the character of the
individual and the circumstances of the crime.”); Eddings v.
Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 113-14 (1982) (holding that the capital
sentencer may not be prevented from considering any relevant
mitigating evidence presented by the defendant); Bell v. Ohio, 438
U.S. 637, 642 (1978) (plurality opinion) (same); Lockett v. Ohio,
438 U.S. 586, 604-05 (1978) (plurality opinion) (same). That is,
in order to constitutionally impose and carry out the death penalty,
a capital sentencer must at least be enabled (although it need not
be instructed) (1) to make an individualized assessment of the
defendant’s moral culpability and deathworthiness, based on a full
consideration of each defendant’s mitigating evidence, as well as
the character and record of the individual offender and the
circumstances of the particular offense; and (2) to give full effect
66
to that evidence by selecting the appropriate sentence, either life
imprisonment or death, according to each defendant’s level of moral
culpability and deathworthiness. See Cole, 443 F.3d at 443-44
(Dennis, J., dissenting); Nelson, 442 F.3d at 303-06 (Dennis, J.,
concurring in the judgment); Tennard, 284 F.3d at 599-601 (Dennis,
J., dissenting).
Nor is the Eighth Amendment’s concern with individual
culpability limited to the selection phase;4 rather, the principle
that capital punishment must be reserved for the most culpable
perpetrators of the most serious crimes “is implemented throughout
the capital sentencing process.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551,
568 (2005). Indeed, the imperative that only the most culpable
offenders be sentenced to death has also long animated the Court’s
decisions holding that certain classes of crimes and offenders are
categorically ineligible for the death penalty, including persons
under the age of 18 at the time of their crime, see id. at 569-75
(holding that reduced culpability of juveniles “demonstrate[s] that
juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the
worst offenders”); see also Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 835,
836-38 (1988) (plurality opinion) (prohibiting imposition of death
4
In Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 971-72 (1994), the
Court recognized that there were two phases of the capital
sentencing process: the “eligibility decision,” which serves to
narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty, and
the “selection decision,” “where the sentencer determines whether
a defendant eligible for the death penalty should in fact receive
that sentence.”
67
penalty for persons under 16 at the time of their crime; “The
reasons why juveniles are not trusted with the privileges and
responsibilities of an adult also explain why their irresponsible
conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.”); the
mentally retarded, see Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
(“Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal
sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability.”); persons
convicted of raping an adult woman, see Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S.
584, 598 (1977) (“Rape is without doubt deserving of serious
punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the
person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which
does involve the unjustified taking of human life.”); murderers
whose killings do not involve an elevated level of moral depravity
or any other aggravating circumstance, see Godfrey v. Georgia, 446
U.S. 420, 433 (1980) (plurality opinion) (reversing death sentence
where “[t]he petitioner’s crimes cannot be said to have reflected
a consciousness materially more ‘depraved’ than that of any person
guilty of murder”); and persons convicted of felony murder who lack
a sufficiently culpable mental state, see Enmund v. Florida, 458
U.S. 782, 798 (1982) (“Enmund[’s] . . . culpability is plainly
different from that of the robbers who killed; yet the State treated
them alike and attributed to Enmund the culpability of those who
68
killed the Kerseys. This was impermissible under the Eighth
Amendment.”).5
2. Penry I Recognized That The Eighth Amendment Requires A
Capital Sentencing Jury To Have The Ability To Both
Consider And Give Effect To All Relevant Mitigating
Evidence In Choosing A Sentence.
Given the pre-existing Eighth Amendment requirement that a
capital sentencer must have individualized sentencing capability,
it is not surprising that the Supreme Court in Penry I held that the
Texas sentencing scheme was unconstitutional as applied when the
Texas courts’ reading of the statute did not permit the jury as
sentencer to either assess the defendant’s culpability or select the
appropriate sentence. Consistent with the well established
individualized sentencing principles that it had held to be required
by the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court in Penry I held:
Underlying Lockett and Eddings is the principle that
punishment should be directly related to the personal
culpability of the criminal defendant. If the sentencer
is to make an individualized assessment of the
appropriateness of the death penalty, “evidence about the
defendant’s background and character is relevant . . . .”
Moreover, Eddings makes clear that it is not enough
simply to allow the defendant to present mitigating
evidence to the sentencer. The sentencer must also be
able to consider and give effect to that evidence in
imposing sentence. Only then can we be sure that the
sentencer has treated the defendant as a “uniquely
individual human bein[g]” and has made a reliable
determination that death is the appropriate sentence.
“Thus, the sentence imposed at the penalty stage should
5
See also Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 156-57 (1987)
(clarifying scope of Enmund, and noting that “[a] critical facet of
the individualized determination of culpability required in capital
cases is the mental state with which the defendant commits the
crime”).
69
reflect a reasoned moral response to the defendant’s
background, character, and crime.”
Penry I, 492 U.S. at 319 (italics in original) (emphasis added)
(internal citations omitted). In Penry I, “[t]he State conceded at
oral argument . . . that if a juror concluded that Penry acted
deliberately and was likely to be dangerous in the future, but also
concluded that because of his mental retardation he was not
sufficiently culpable to deserve the death penalty, that juror would
be unable to give effect to that mitigating evidence under the
instructions given in this case.” Id. at 326. Consequently, the
Court held that “in the absence of instructions informing the jury
that it could consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence
of Penry’s mental retardation and abused background by declining to
impose the death penalty . . . the jury was not provided with a
vehicle for expressing its ‘reasoned moral response’ to that
evidence in rendering its sentencing decision.” Id. at 328 (emphasis
added).
3. The Supreme Court Has Consistently Reaffirmed Penry I’s
Holding That A Capital Sentencing Jury Must Be Able To
Consider And Give Effect To All Relevant Mitigating
Evidence In Selecting A Sentence.
In its immediately following 1990 term, the Supreme Court
repeatedly reaffirmed and applied the holding of Penry I, i.e., that
the Eighth Amendment requires that the capital sentencer be able to
consider and give effect to all relevant mitigating evidence in
selecting and imposing the appropriate life or death sentence. See
70
Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 377-78 (1990) (“The Eighth
Amendment requires that the jury be able to consider and give effect
to all relevant mitigating evidence offered by petitioner.”)
(citing, inter alia, Penry I); McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S.
433, 443 (1990) (“As the Court stated in [Penry I]: . . . . “‘[T]he
Constitution limits a State’s ability to narrow a sentencer’s
discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to
decline to impose the death sentence.’ Indeed, it is precisely
because the punishment should be directly related to the personal
culpability of the defendant that the jury must be allowed to
consider and give effect to mitigating evidence relevant to a
defendant’s character or record or the circumstances of the
offense.”) (internal citation omitted); Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S.
484, 491 (1990) (“In Penry, we held that resolution of a claim that
the Texas death penalty scheme prevented the jury from considering
and giving effect to certain types of mitigating evidence did not
involve the creation of a new rule under Teague. See Penry, 492 U.S.
at 315 []. To the extent that Penry’s claim was that the Texas
system prevented the jury from giving any mitigating effect to the
evidence of his mental retardation and abuse in childhood, the
decision that the claim did not require the creation of a new rule
is not surprising. Lockett and Eddings command that the State must
allow the jury to give effect to mitigating evidence in making the
sentencing decision; Penry’s contention was that Texas barred the
jury from so acting.”); Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 304-
71
05 (1990) (“Last Term, we elaborated on this principle, holding that
‘the jury must be able to consider and give effect to any mitigating
evidence relevant to a defendant’s background and character or the
circumstances of the crime.’ Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 328[]
(1989)”).
Through the 1990s, the Court continued to ratify the Penry I
requirement that the capital sentencing jury must able to consider
and give effect to the defendant’s relevant mitigating evidence in
selecting and imposing the appropriate sentence. See Payne v.
Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 822 (1991) (“We have held that a State
cannot preclude the sentencer from considering ‘any relevant
mitigating evidence’ that the defendant proffers in support of a
sentence less than death. . . . [V]irtually no limits are placed
on the relevant mitigating evidence a capital defendant may
introduce concerning his own circumstances . . . .”) (internal
citations omitted); Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269, 276 (1998)
(“In the selection phase, our cases have established that the
sentencer may not be precluded from considering, and may not refuse
to consider, any constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence.
[citing Penry I, Eddings, and Lockett]. . . . Our consistent
concern has been that restrictions on the jury’s sentencing
determination not preclude the jury from being able to give effect
to mitigating evidence.”).
In Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) (“Penry II”), the
Supreme Court emphatically reaffirmed and applied the rule of Penry
72
I. The Court held that in Penry I it had “confirm[ed] that in a
capital case, ‘[t]he sentencer must . . . be able to consider and
give effect to [mitigating] evidence in imposing sentence,’ so that
‘‘the sentence imposed . . . reflec[ts] a reasoned moral response
to the defendant’s background, character, and crime.’’” Id. at 788
(quoting Penry I, 492 U.S. at 319) (alterations in original). The
Court in Penry II made clear that a Texas court violates the rule
of Penry I and the Eighth Amendment when it only allows the jury to
use relevant mitigating evidence to answer the special issues
without also allowing it to use such evidence to select the
appropriate life or death sentence. The Penry II Court explained
“the key under Penry I” as follows:
Penry I did not hold that the mere mention of “mitigating
circumstances” to a capital sentencing jury satisfies the
Eighth Amendment. Nor does it stand for the proposition
that it is constitutionally sufficient to inform the jury
that it may “consider” mitigating circumstances in
deciding the appropriate sentence. Rather, the key under
Penry I is that the jury be able to “consider and give
effect to [a defendant’s mitigating] evidence in imposing
sentence.” 492 U.S., at 319, 109 S.Ct. 2934 (emphasis
added). See also Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 381, 113
S.Ct. 2658, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993) (O’CONNOR, J.,
dissenting) (“[A] sentencer [must] be allowed to give
full consideration and full effect to mitigating
circumstances” (emphasis in original)). For it is only
when the jury is given a “vehicle for expressing its
‘reasoned moral response’ to that evidence in rendering
its sentencing decision,” Penry I, 492 U.S., at 328, 109
S.Ct. 2934, that we can be sure that the jury “has
treated the defendant as a ‘uniquely individual human
bein[g]’ and has made a reliable determination that death
is the appropriate sentence,” id., at 319, 109 S.Ct. 2934
(quoting Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304,
305, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976)).
Penry II, 532 U.S. at 797.
73
Applying the rule of Penry I again, the Court in Penry II held
that the pre-1991 Texas capital sentencing scheme was
unconstitutional as applied in Penry’s second capital sentencing for
essentially the same reasons it was constitutionally defective the
first time. The state trial court had attempted to cure the
constitutional deficiency with an ad hoc supplemental instruction,
but that instruction did not pass muster under the rule of Penry I
because it did not clearly inform the jurors that they were legally
empowered to consider and give effect to Penry’s mitigating evidence
in selecting and imposing the appropriate life or death sentence.
As the Penry II court stated, repeating the words of Penry I: “‘[A]
reasonable juror could well have believed that there was no vehicle
for expressing the view that Penry did not deserve to be sentenced
to death based upon his mitigating evidence.’” Id. at 804 (quoting
Penry I, 492 U.S. at 326).
In 2004, the Supreme Court twice reaffirmed the rule of Penry
I in Texas death penalty cases. In Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274
(2004), and Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37 (2004), the Court confirmed
Penry I’s vitality and restated the rules governing its application.
Tennard and Smith made plain that the inquiry that this court must
undertake in a Penry case is simply to consider whether the
defendant’s evidence is relevant (i.e., whether it tends to prove
or disprove any fact that the sentencer might deem mitigating), and,
if so, determine whether the special issues inhibit the jury’s
ability to consider and give effect to that evidence. Tennard and
74
Smith also clearly instructed both this court and the Texas courts
to refrain from placing restrictive glosses on the Court’s
jurisprudence and creating unwarranted impediments to Penry claims.
In Tennard, the Court first summarized the rules of federal law
it had recognized in Penry I, that: (1) the pre-1991 Texas capital
sentencing scheme “provided a constitutionally inadequate vehicle
for jurors to consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence
of mental retardation and childhood abuse....” Tennard, 542 U.S. at
276; (2) “‘it is not enough simply to allow the defendant to present
mitigating evidence to the sentencer...’” but rather “‘[t]he
sentencer must also be able to consider and give effect to that
evidence in imposing sentence,’” id. at 278 (quoting Penry I, 492
U.S. at 319); (3) the “give effect to” language of Penry I was “the
key” to that decision, id. at 278; (4) the same two special issues
that were presented to Tennard’s jury were “insufficient for the
jury in Penry’s case to consider and give effect to Penry’s evidence
of mental retardation and childhood abuse,” id.; (5) Penry’s mental
retardation evidence “‘‘had relevance to [his] moral culpability
beyond the scope of the [deliberateness] special verdict
questio[n]’’ because ‘[p]ersonal culpability is not solely a
function of a defendant’s capacity to act ‘deliberately,’’” id. at
278-79 (quoting Penry I, 492 U.S. at 322) (alterations in original);
(6) Penry’s mental retardation evidence “was relevant to the future
dangerousness special issue ‘only as an aggravating factor,’” id.
75
at 279 (quoting Penry I, 492 U.S. at 323); and (7) “the two special
issues simply failed to ‘provide a vehicle for the jury to give [the
evidence of childhood abuse] mitigating effect.’” Id. (quoting
Penry I, 492 U.S. at 322-24).
The Tennard court next called upon us to comply with the rules
of federal law it had established concerning the introduction and
use by the sentencing body of a defendant’s mitigating evidence in
a capital case. It adduced its holding in McKoy that in capital
cases the “meaning of relevance is no different in the context of
mitigating evidence . . . than in any other context, and thus the
general evidentiary standard—any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence
— applies.” Tennard, 542 U.S. at 284 (quoting McKoy, 494 U.S. at
440) (internal quotation marks omitted). Then, the Court in Tennard
recognized the effects of its previous holdings regarding the
relevance standard in capital cases. “Once this low threshold for
relevance is met, the ‘Eighth Amendment requires that the jury be
able to consider and give effect to’ a capital defendant’s
mitigating evidence.” Id. at 285 (quoting Boyde, 494 U.S. at
377-78).
Further, the Court commented on and quoted from its opinion in
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), regarding its rules
about the introduction and use of relevant mitigating evidence. “We
have never denied that gravity has a place in the relevance
76
analysis, insofar as evidence of a trivial feature of the
defendant’s character or the circumstances of the crime is unlikely
to have any tendency to mitigate the defendant’s culpability.”
Tennard, 542 U.S. at 286 (citing Skipper, 476 U.S. at 7 n.2).
“However, to say that only those features and circumstances that a
panel of federal appellate judges deems to be ‘severe’ (let alone
‘uniquely severe’) could have such a tendency is incorrect. Rather,
the question is simply whether the evidence is of such a character
that it ‘might serve ‘as a basis for a sentence less than death.’’”
Id. at 287 (quoting Skipper, 476 U.S. at 5). The Tennard court also
held that the Fifth Circuit had erred in creating and applying its
own restrictive gloss—its “constitutional relevance” rule6—as a
threshold screening test to truncate its judicial review, rather
than applying the federal rules clearly established by the Court’s
decisions to the defendant’s mitigating evidence and Penry claim.
The Court disapproved of the “constitutional relevance” rule as
“ha[ving] no foundation in the decisions of this Court. Neither
Penry I nor its progeny screened mitigating evidence for
‘constitutional relevance’ before considering whether the jury
instructions comported with the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 284.
6
Under the Fifth Circuit’s rule at that time, to be
constitutionally relevant, the defendant’s mitigating evidence had
to show (1) a uniquely severe permanent handicap with which the
defendant was burdened through no fault of his own, and (2) that
the defendant’s criminal act was attributable to that severe
condition.
77
Finally, the Tennard court held that evidence of impaired
intellectual functioning is obviously evidence under the clearly
established relevance standard that “‘might serve ‘as a basis for
a sentence less than death,’’” id. at 287 (quoting Skipper, 476 U.S.
at 5), and that “[t]he relationship between the special issues and
Tennard’s low IQ evidence has the same essential features as the
relationship between the special issues and Penry’s mental
retardation evidence. Impaired intellectual functioning has
mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual’s
ability to act deliberately.” Id. at 288 (citing Penry I, 492 U.S.
at 322).
Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion for a six-member majority
in Tennard, and was joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter,
Ginsburg and Breyer.
Shortly after Tennard, in Smith, the Supreme Court reiterated
that the standard relevance test governs the admission and use of
mitigating evidence in capital cases. The Smith court also
reaffirmed the rule “that the jury must be given an effective
vehicle with which to weigh mitigating evidence so long as the
defendant has met a low threshold for relevance, which is satisfied
by evidence which tends logically to prove or disprove some fact or
circumstance which a fact-finder could reasonably deem to have
mitigating value.” Smith, 543 U.S. at 44 (quoting Tennard, 542 U.S.
at 284-85) (internal quotation marks omitted).
78
In Smith, the defendant had presented evidence that (1) he had
potentially organic learning disabilities and speech handicaps; (2)
he had a verbal IQ of 75, a full IQ of 78, and had been in special
education classes in school; (3) his behavior at school was often
exemplary, notwithstanding his low IQ and learning disabilities; (4)
his father was a drug addict and violent criminal who regularly
stole money from his family to support his drug addiction; and (5)
he was only 19 years old at the time of his crime. Id. at 41.
According to the Smith court, “[t]hat petitioner’s evidence was
relevant for mitigation purposes is plain under our precedents, even
those predating Tennard.” Id. at 45 (citing Penry I, 492 U.S. at
319-322, Payne, 501 U.S. at 822), Boyde, 494 U.S. at 377-78, and
Eddings, 455 U.S. at 114). Having found the evidence relevant, the
Court stated that “the Eighth Amendment required the trial court to
empower the jury with a vehicle capable of giving effect to that
evidence.” Id.; see also id. at 46 (noting that Penry II “held that
‘the key under Penry I is that the jury be able to ‘consider and
give effect to [a defendant’s mitigation] evidence in imposing
sentence’‘”) (quoting Penry II, 532 U.S. at 797).
Seven members of the Court joined the per curiam opinion in
Smith, including Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O’Connor,
Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Scalia,
joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, saying only that he would
affirm the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and
79
adhering to his longstanding position in Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S.
639, 673 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in
the judgment), of not “vot[ing] to uphold an Eighth Amendment claim
that the sentencer’s discretion has been unlawfully restricted.”
See Smith, 543 U.S. at 49 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Finally, in 2006, the Court again confirmed the Penry I rule
requiring that a capital sentencing jury be able to consider and
give effect to relevant mitigating evidence in the selection of the
appropriate life or death sentence. See Oregon v. Guzek, 126 S. Ct.
1226, 1228 (2006) (“The Eighth Amendment insists upon ‘‘reliability
in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a
specific case.’’ The Eighth Amendment also insists that a
sentencing jury be able ‘to consider and give effect to mitigating
evidence’ about the defendant’s ‘character or record or the
circumstances of the offense.’”) (quoting Penry I, 492 U.S at
327-328) (internal citations omitted).
In sum, the Supreme Court has continued to reaffirm and apply
the Penry I rule in many cases since its inception in 1989, has
recognized its application to cases involving such relevant
mitigating evidence as impaired intellectual function, low IQ,
troubled and abusive childhood, participation in special education
classes, and mental retardation, and has developed numerous
auxiliary jurisprudential rules in support of the application of the
Penry I rule.
80
4. The Court’s Cases Demonstrate That Johnson Does Not
Change or Limit The Penry I Rule; It Merely Establishes
Auxiliary Principles Relating To Its Application.
Contrary to the argument by the State and my dissenting
colleagues, the Supreme Court in Johnson did not change or limit the
Penry I rule that the Eighth Amendment requires that a capital
sentencing jury must be able to give full consideration and effect
to all of a defendant’s relevant mitigating evidence in imposing the
appropriate life or death sentence. In Johnson, the Court merely
recognized three auxiliary principles for implementing the Penry I
rule: (1) Because of the unique manner in which youth mitigation
evidence aligns the inquiry into future dangerousness with an
assessment of culpability or deathworthiness, a defendant’s relevant
mitigating evidence of youth may be given full consideration and
effect by the jury’s answer to the future dangerousness special
issue; (2) In order to determine whether a Penry violation occurred,
a reviewing court must ask whether there is a reasonable likelihood
that the jury has applied the special issues in a way that prevents
it from giving full consideration and effect to any relevant
mitigating evidence; and (3) the state may shape and structure the
jury’s consideration so long as it does not preclude the jury from
giving effect to any relevant mitigating evidence, because, as the
Court subsequently explained, “[o]ur consistent concern has been
that restrictions on the jury’s sentencing determination not
preclude the jury from being able to give effect to mitigating
evidence.” Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269, 276 (1998).
81
That Johnson established these auxiliary principles and did not
change or limit the rule of Penry I itself was most clearly
demonstrated by the Court’s decision in Buchanan. In that case, the
Court held that the state trial court’s refusal to give instructions
on the concept of mitigation and on particular statutorily defined
mitigating factors did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Id. at 276-78. The Court explained that the defendant,
in arguing to the contrary, misunderstood the significant
distinction it had drawn between the two phases of the capital
sentencing process: the eligibility phase, in which the jury narrows
the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty, and the
selection phase, with which Buchanan was concerned, in which the
jury determines whether to impose a death sentence on an eligible
defendant. Id. at 275-76 (citing Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S.
967, 971-972 (1994)). In explaining the eligibility and selection
phases, the Court again ratified the Penry I rule and described the
principles that had been generated by Johnson in terms that indicate
the Court views them as supporting, rather than limiting, rules:
In the eligibility phase, the jury narrows the class of
defendants eligible for the death penalty, often through
consideration of aggravating circumstances. In the
selection phase, the jury determines whether to impose a
death sentence on an eligible defendant. . . .
. . . . It is in regard to the eligibility phase that we
have stressed the need for channeling and limiting the
jury’s discretion to ensure that the death penalty is a
proportionate punishment and therefore not arbitrary or
capricious in its imposition. In contrast, in the
selection phase, we have emphasized the need for a broad
inquiry into all relevant mitigating evidence to allow an
82
individualized determination. Tuilaepa, supra, at
971-973, 114 S.Ct., at 2634-2636; Romano v. Oklahoma, 512
U.S. 1, 6-7, 114 S.Ct. 2004, 2008-2009, 129 L.Ed.2d 1
(1994); McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 304-306, 107
S.Ct. 1756, 1773-1775, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987); Stephens,
supra, at 878-879, 103 S.Ct., at 2743-2744. . . .
In the selection phase, our cases have established that
the sentencer may not be precluded from considering, and
may not refuse to consider, any constitutionally relevant
mitigating evidence. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302,
317-318, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2946-2947, 106 L.Ed.2d 256
(1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 113-114, 102
S.Ct. 869, 876-877, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio,
438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2964-2965, 57 L.Ed.2d
973 (1978). However, the state may shape and structure
the jury’s consideration of mitigation so long as it does
not preclude the jury from giving effect to any relevant
mitigating evidence. Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 362,
113 S.Ct. 2658, 2666, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993); Penry,
supra, at 326, 109 S.Ct., at 2951; Franklin v. Lynaugh,
487 U.S. 164, 181, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2331, 101 L.Ed.2d 155
(1988). Our consistent concern has been that restrictions
on the jury’s sentencing determination not preclude the
jury from being able to give effect to mitigating
evidence.
Id. at 275-76 (emphasis added).
Thus, as the Buchanan Court read Penry I together with Johnson,
Tuilaepa, Romano and other cases, the rule of Penry I is not limited
by Johnson at all. Instead, the Penry I holding that the Eighth
Amendment requires that a capital sentencing jury be able to
consider fully and give effect to the defendant’s relevant
mitigating evidence by selecting the appropriate sentence stands
unlimited and unscathed by Johnson. Johnson, as read by Buchanan,
merely establishes precedent for application of the Boyde test and
adds that a State may shape and structure mitigation consideration
83
so long as it does not prevent the sentencer from giving effect to
the mitigating evidence.
Moreover, as pointed out earlier, since Johnson was decided,
the Court in Penry II, Tennard, and Smith repeatedly reaffirmed the
rule and holding of Penry I as Justice O’Connor described it, first,
in Penry I itself, next, in her dissent in Johnson, again in the
six-member majority of Penry II, and finally in Tennard. In her
Johnson dissent, Justice O’Connor stated:
[In Penry I],we plainly held that the Texas special
issues violated the Eighth Amendment to the extent they
prevented the jury from giving full consideration and
effect to a defendant’s relevant mitigating evidence.
Penry was in no way limited to evidence that is only
aggravating under the “future dangerousness” issue. We
stated there that “Eddings makes clear that it is not
enough simply to allow the defendant to present
mitigating evidence to the sentencer. The sentencer must
also be able to consider and give effect to that evidence
in imposing sentence.” That we meant “full effect” is
evident from the remainder of our discussion. We first
determined that Penry’s evidence of mental retardation
and his abused childhood was relevant to the question
whether he acted deliberately under the first special
issue. But having some relevance to an issue was not
sufficient, and the problem was not, as the Court today
suggests, simply that no jury instruction defined the
term “deliberately.” Instead, we noted that the jury must
be able to give effect to the evidence as it related to
Penry’s “[p]ersonal culpability,” which “is not solely a
function of a defendant’s capacity to act
‘deliberately.’” The jury could not give full effect to
Penry’s evidence under the first special issue because
“deliberately” was not defined “in a way that would
clearly direct the jury to consider fully Penry’s
mitigating evidence as it bears on his personal
culpability.” That is, the evidence had relevance beyond
the scope of the first issue.
84
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 385-86 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (alteration
in original) (internal citations omitted).
Significantly, too, Justice Kennedy, Johnson’s author, joined
the six member majorities in Penry II and Tennard, and the seven
member majority in Smith. Further, Tennard and Smith made clear
that the rule of Penry I applies to all categories of mitigating
evidence that are relevant to the assessment of a defendant’s
diminished culpability or that might cause a jury through its
reasoned moral response to select life imprisonment rather than a
death sentence for the defendant. These decisions, along with
Buchanan, have resoundingly ratified and continued to uphold Justice
O’Connor’s view as expressed in Penry I that the Eighth Amendment
requires that a capital sentencing jury be able to fully consider
defendant’s relevant mitigating evidence by using that evidence to
assess his moral culpability and to give full effect to that
evidence by selecting the appropriate life or death sentence for him
in that case.
Also, as the Court has made clear in Buchanan, Tennard, Smith,
and other cases, the State’s ability to shape and structure the
capital sentencer’s consideration of mitigation evidence may not be
used to “preclude the jury from giving effect to any relevant
mitigating evidence” by selecting the appropriate sentence for the
offender in each case. Buchanan, 522 U.S. at 276. The Court
emphasized its continued disapproval of the use of the Texas special
issues to in any way “constrain” the jury’s ability to give effect
85
to mitigation evidence by selecting the appropriate sentence. In
comparing the Virginia sentencing system involved in Buchanan with
the Texas system used in Penry I, the Court stated:
The instruction informed the jurors that if they found
the aggravating factor proved beyond a reasonable doubt
then they “may fix” the penalty at death, but directed
that if they believed that all the evidence justified a
lesser sentence then they “shall” impose a life sentence.
The jury was thus allowed to impose a life sentence even
if it found the aggravating factor proved. Moreover, in
contrast to the Texas special issues scheme in question
in Penry, the instructions here did not constrain the
manner in which the jury was able to give effect to
mitigation.
Id. at 277 (internal citation and footnote omitted).
Furthermore, as described earlier, the Court in Tennard and
Smith emphatically held that state and inferior federal courts may
not through judicial glosses or otherwise create ad hoc or common
law type threshold or screening rules that cut short appellate
review of death penalty cases and thus indirectly have the effect
of approving and encouraging constraints upon the manner in which
the capital sentencing juries are able to give full effect to
relevant mitigating evidence in the selection of the appropriate
death or life imprisonment sentence in individual cases.
The reaffirmation of Penry I’s rule that the capital sentencing
jury be able to give both full consideration and full effect to
relevant mitigating evidence, moreover, necessitates realigning the
Boyde test analogue for application to the present case in which,
allegedly, the capital sentencer was incapable of either
appropriately considering or giving effect to the defendant’s
86
mitigating evidence for the purposes of individualized sentencing.
Due to the marked differences between the Texas sentencing system
in the present case and the California system in Boyde, the Boyde
rule cannot be applied in precisely the same way to the alleged dual
error in the present case.
In Boyde, although the jury was instructed that it must impose
the death penalty if it found the aggravating circumstances to
outweigh the mitigating circumstances and a life imprisonment
sentence if it found vice versa, the jurors retained a great deal
of discretion in that they could decide what weight to assign the
aggravating and mitigating factors and they were fully enabled to
make the ultimate choice of whether to impose or withhold the death
penalty. Thus, the California system in Boyde was markedly
different from the pre-1991 Texas system under which the jury was
not legally authorized to choose between life and death sentences
in any case. In Boyde, the defendant argued that although the jury
retained significant sentencing discretion, his constitutional
rights were violated because the jury was given an instruction that
could have misled it into thinking it was not free to consider his
mitigating evidence of background and character in deciding whether
to impose the death penalty. Near the beginning of the Supreme Court
opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist reaffirmed the rule of Penry I:
“The Eighth Amendment requires that the jury be able to consider and
give effect to all relevant mitigating evidence offered by
petitioner.” Boyde, 494 U.S. at 378. However, after that point the
87
Boyde opinion does not refer to the “give effect” part of the rule
as it was not genuinely at issue, the only real question being
whether the allegedly ambiguous jury instruction had prevented the
jury from “be[ing] able to consider . . . all relevant mitigating
evidence.” Id. The Court decided that the rule to be applied to
such an alleged ambiguous jury instruction would be the “reasonable
likelihood” test and, upon applying that test, concluded that there
was no reasonable likelihood that Boyde’s jury had been precluded
from considering the relevant background and character mitigation
evidence. As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained:
In this case we are presented with a single jury
instruction. The instruction is not concededly
erroneous, nor found so by a court, as was the case in
Stromberg v. Cailfornia, 283 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75
L.Ed. 1117 (1931). The claim is that the instruction is
ambiguous and therefore subject to an erroneous
interpretation. We think the proper inquiry in such a
case is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the
jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that
prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant
evidence. Although a defendant need not establish that
the jury was more likely than not to have been
impermissibly inhibited by the instruction, a capital
sentencing proceeding is not inconsistent with the Eighth
Amendment if there is only a possibility of such an
inhibition. This “reasonable likelihood” standard, we
think, better accommodates the concerns of finality and
accuracy than does a standard which makes the inquiry
dependent on how a single hypothetical “reasonable” juror
could or might have interpreted the instruction.
Id. at 380.
Because the capital sentencing jury in the present case, like the
jury in Penry I, was not free or able to choose a life imprisonment
sentence for Nelson, the alleged constitutional deficiency here
88
affected the jury’s ability to both “consider and give effect” to
Nelson’s relevant mitigating evidence; it is not merely an alleged
ambiguous jury instruction that could have affected only their
understanding of the types of mitigating evidence that they could
consider. Indeed, as I explain in the last section of this opinion,
the constitutional deficiency here is a structural defect which
affected the entire capital sentencing proceeding and cannot be
analyzed for harmless error, i.e., the alleged binary defect is (1)
the total absence of the jury’s ability to consider the mitigating
evidence for purposes of assessing Nelson’s moral culpability or
deathworthiness; and (2) the total absence of the jury’s ability to
give the evidence effect by selecting the sentence it deems
appropriate based on that assessment. Accordingly, if the Boyde
test is to be applied by analogy in the present case, it must be
adjusted to properly and completely fit both elements of the alleged
constitutional violation here. Because, unlike the situation in
Boyde, there is a serious question here whether the jury was
precluded from giving effect to Nelson’s mitigating evidence, the
proper inquiry here should be whether there is a reasonable
likelihood that the jury was prevented from considering Nelson’s
mitigation evidence to assess his culpability or giving effect to
that evidence by selecting the appropriate sentence.
Because of the unique nature of the youth mitigation evidence
at issue in Johnson, the Court there apparently considered that only
an alleged failure in the jury’s ability to consider the evidence
89
was at issue. The Court in Johnson must have concluded that the
jury was fully capable of giving effect to the mitigating evidence
by selecting the sentence if the jury instruction had not precluded
them from giving it full consideration. Thus, the situations posing
only unitary errors in both Boyde and Johnson were quite similar in
this respect despite other differences in the two sentencing
systems. Consequently, there was no need for the Court to consider
further reshaping the Boyde test analogue that it derived from its
Boyde decision. For all of these reasons, the Johnson Court’s use
of a Boyde test analogue capable of testing only for a preclusion
of the jury’s ability to consider the evidence should not prevent
courts from reshaping the analogue test to make it suitable for
detecting a preclusion of both the jury’s ability to consider and
to give effect to relevant mitigating evidence.
Considering all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the
Court’s decisions subsequent to Johnson demonstrate that neither it
nor any other decision has been read as limiting or changing the
constitutional requirements and principles established in Penry I.
5. Texas’ Pre-1991 Capital Sentencing Scheme Provided a
Constitutionally Inadequate Vehicle for Jurors to Consider and
Give Effect to the Mitigating Evidence that Nelson Presented.
As I explained above, by the time Nelson’s conviction became
final in 1994, the relevant Supreme Court cases had clearly
established that in order to constitutionally impose and carry out
the death penalty, a capital sentencer must be enabled: (1) to make
an individualized assessment of each defendant’s moral culpability
90
and deathworthiness and (2) to give full effect to that evidence by
selecting between either life imprisonment or death as the
appropriate sentence.
In this case, Nelson presented evidence during the punishment
phase of his trial that (1) he was rejected by his mother; (2) he
abused drugs and alcohol; (3) he had troubled relationships with his
brother and with women; (4) he had fathered a child, with whom he
was not allowed to have a relationship; and (5) he suffered from
borderline personality disorder. The state courts held that all of
Nelson’s evidence could be adequately considered within the
“deliberateness” and “future dangerousness” special issues.
It is abundantly clear that there is more than a reasonable
likelihood that the jury was not permitted to fully consider and
give effect to Nelson’s mitigating evidence, as the “deliberateness”
and “future dangerousness” special issues did not permit the jury
to consider how that evidence affected their assessment of Nelson’s
moral culpability or to agree upon whether the death penalty or life
imprisonment was the appropriate sentence in his case. There can
be no question that Nelson’s mitigating evidence, particularly his
evidence of a frequently disorienting borderline personality
disorder, a medically recognized mental illness,7 implicates his
7
Nelson’s expert psychiatric witness, Dr. Hickman, testified
that his borderline personality disorder caused him to experience
sudden, violent outbursts of emotion that clouded his judgment. See
See Nelson v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 282, 310-11 (5th Cir. 2006) (Dennis,
J., concurring in the judgment) (describing testimony about
Nelson’s psychological condition in detail). The fourth
91
deathworthiness and his moral culpability. Nelson’s troubled
background and mental disorder make him less morally culpable
independently of the issues of whether he acted deliberately or
would be a future danger. But “because the jury was only called
upon to answer two relatively simple yes or no questions, there is
no reason to suppose that it could or would consider the evidence
for the complex purpose of assessing the comparative level of
Nelson’s culpability.” Nelson, 442 F.3d at 306 (Dennis, J.,
concurring in the judgment). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
in my concurring panel opinion, I agree with the en banc majority
that a Penry violation occurred in this case and that the state
courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in
denying Nelson’s claim.
6. The Restrictive Glosses Applied At The Panel Level In This
Case And Others Have No Basis In The Supreme Court’s
Decisions.
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders defines Borderline Personality Disorder as “[a] pervasive
pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image,
and affects, and marked impulsivity by early adulthood and present
in a variety of contexts,” marked by five or more of the following:
(1) “frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment”; (2) “a
pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships
characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and
devaluation”; (3) “identity disturbance: markedly and persistently
unstable self-image or sense of self”; (4) “impulsivity in at least
two areas that are potentially self-damaging”; (5) “recurrent
suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating
behavior”; (6) “affective instability due to a marked reactivity of
mood”; (7) “chronic feelings of emptiness”; (8) “inappropriate,
intense anger or difficulty controlling anger”; and (9) “transient,
stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms.”
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders 709 (4th ed., text. rev., 2000).
92
As the Supreme Court made unmistakably clear in Tennard, this
court is not permitted to artificially or ingeniously narrow Penry
I by imposing screening tests or placing restrictive glosses on the
Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. Tennard, 542 U.S. at 283-84; see
also Smith, 543 U.S. at 43-45. In Tennard, the Court admonished
this circuit that its “constitutional relevance,” “uniquely severe
permanent handicap,” and “nexus” tests were restrictive glosses that
had “no foundation in the decisions” of the Supreme Court. Tennard,
542 U.S. at 284, 289. As Tennard instructed, we are not permitted
to alter or elaborate the tests outlined by the Supreme Court so as
to “fail to reach the heart of [a defendant’s] Penry claims.” Id.
at 286.
In holding that Nelson’s mitigating evidence could be
considered within the context of the special issues, the state court
and Chief Judge Jones’ panel opinion in this case erroneously relied
on pre-Tennard Fifth Circuit precedent that, like the defunct
“constitutional relevance” test, are unsupported by the Supreme
Court’s cases. The state court and Chief Judge Jones’ panel opinion
used such cases to find that both Nelson’s evidence concerning his
background and troubled relationships and his evidence of voluntary
intoxication could be sufficiently considered within the scope of
the special issues. See Nelson, 442 F.3d at 285-86. In light of
the clearly established law described above, however, it was error
to rely on prior Fifth Circuit threshold and screening rules in
those cases.
93
Even more troubling is Chief Judge Jones’ panel opinion’s
resort to yet another of this circuit’s restrictive glosses on the
Supreme Court’s Penry jurisprudence, in the form of the “treatable
mental disorder” test, under which evidence of a mental disorder
that is only theoretically treatable is not considered Penry
evidence. Nelson, 442 F.3d at 287 (citing Coble v. Dretke, 417 F.3d
508 (5th Cir. 2005)). Again, this test adds a gloss that has no
basis in the Supreme Court’s decisions. This circuit’s rule that
any theoretically non-permanent mental illness can be given the
requisite effect through the Texas special issues is simply another
contrivance to avoid the requirements of the Supreme Court’s
individualized sentencing jurisprudence, and I agree with the
majority that it should not be applied.8
In addition, I agree with the majority’s decision to reject the
wholly-unfounded “double-edged” evidence rule. This court has
sometimes used Johnson to deny Penry claims by stating that Johnson
adopted a so-called “double-edged” evidence rule, under which
mitigating evidence does not trigger Penry scrutiny unless a juror
considering the evidence could give it only aggravating, and not
mitigating, effect under the special issues. See, e.g., Cole v.
Dretke, 418 F.3d 494, 505-08 & n.54 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. granted
sub nom., Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 127 S. Ct. 432 (2006). As the
8
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in a case
involving this rule. See Brewer v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 273, 280 (5th
Cir.) (stating that non-permanent mental illness does not give rise
to a Penry claim), cert. granted, 127 S. Ct. 433 (2006).
94
majority points out, although the Penry I court remarked that one
of the problems with the application of the special issues to
Penry’s case was that a juror could only find Penry’s evidence of
mental retardation to be an aggravating factor, see Penry I, 492
U.S. at 324, that observation was not the basis for the decision and
Penry I is not therefore limited to such “double-edged” evidence.
Moreover, as I explained in my dissent from the denial of rehearing
en banc in Cole, nothing in the Court’s decision in Johnson or
subsequent cases indicates that the Johnson court adopted such a
rule. See Cole, 443 F.3d at 450-51 (Dennis, J., dissenting).
7. The State’s Failure To Enable Its Capital Sentencing Jury
To Give Full Consideration And Effect To Nelson’s
Relevant Mitigating Evidence Cannot Be Harmless Error.
i. The State Waived Its Harmless Error Argument.
The state did not argue that any Penry error in this case could
be harmless until its en banc brief in this court. Ordinarily, the
state bears the burden of showing that a preserved error was
harmless. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81
n.7 (2004). In addition, the state can waive harmless error review
by failing to raise the issue in a timely and unequivocal manner in
the district court. See Sanders v. Cotton, 398 F.3d 572, 582 (7th
Cir. 2005); Lam v. Kelchner, 304 F.3d 256, 269-70 (3d Cir. 2002);
2 RANDY HERTZ & JAMES S. LIEBMAN, FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PRACTICE & PROCEDURE §
31.2, at 1512 & n.1 (5th ed. 2005); see also Saldano v. Roach, 363
F.3d 545, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2004). Although a court retains the
discretion to consider the harmless error issue even when it has
95
been waived, it should generally do so only if the error’s
harmlessness is clear from even a cursory review of the record and
reversal for further proceedings would be nothing more than a waste
of resources. See Sanders, 398 F.3d at 582; United States v.
Giovannetti, 928 F.2d 225, 226-27 (7th Cir. 1991). Whether the
court should overlook the state’s waiver of harmless error in any
particular case depends on “the length and complexity of the record,
whether the harmlessness of the error or errors found is certain or
debatable, and whether a reversal will result in protracted, costly,
and ultimately futile proceedings in the district court.”
Giovannetti, 928 F.2d at 227.
Although I did not consider the effect of the state’s failure
to raise harmless error in my concurring panel opinion, I am now
convinced that the state waived any argument concerning harmless
error by failing to raise it in the district court. Moreover,
applying the factors set out in Giovannetti, it is clear that this
is not a case in which we should exercise our discretion to overlook
that waiver. The record in Nelson’s case is substantial and the
issues are complex; it is certainly debatable whether the trial
court’s error is, or could ever be, harmless (indeed, I conclude
below that such an error is reversible per se); and reversing
Nelson’s death sentence and ordering a new sentencing proceeding at
which the jury is permitted to fully consider Nelson’s mitigating
evidence in determining the appropriate sentence cannot be
considered a futile act. Accordingly, this court can properly
96
conclude that the state has waived harmless error review and that
this is not an appropriate case in which this court should disregard
the state’s waiver.
ii. A Penry Error Is A Structural Defect That Is Not
Susceptible To Harmless Error Review.
Under principles of law clearly established by the Supreme
Court’s decisions, the constitutional violation in this case was
a “structural defect” that cannot be analyzed as harmless “trial
error.” This is because the violation was not a discrete error that
a reviewing court can determine from the record had no substantial
and injurious effect or influence on the jury’s determination of the
sentence. Rather, the violation was the State’s failure in this case
to enable its capital sentencing jury to give full effect to
Nelson’s relevant mitigating evidence in determining the sentence.
The history and purpose of harmless error review demonstrates
why it is inappropriate in this case. The dichotomy between errors
of constitutional dimension that may be found to be harmless and
those that may not began with Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18
(1967). In Chapman, the Supreme Court recognized that “there are
some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their
infraction can never be treated as harmless error....” Id. at 23.
The Court pointed to the rule against coerced confessions,9 the
9
Id. at 23 n.8 (citing Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560
(1958)).
97
right to counsel,10 the right to an impartial judge,11 and, in a
later case, the rule against double jeopardy,12 as belonging to the
list of constitutional rights so important that their violation
requires automatic reversal. See 3B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 855 (3d ed. 2004). For errors that could be
treated as harmless, Chapman established that the prosecution has
the burden of showing that the error was harmless, and reversal is
required unless the court is “able to declare a belief that it was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24. The
Chapman court warned against “‘overemphasis’ on the notion that
error is harmless if there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.” 3B
WRIGHT ET AL., supra, at § 855. Later, in Bumper v. North Carolina,
391 U.S. 543, 550 n.16 (1968), the Court struck a similar chord,
emphasizing that “it is not the function of this Court to determine
innocence or guilt, much less to apply our own subjective notions
of justice. Our duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United
States.”
Some twenty-four years after Chapman, building on the dichotomy
it recognized, the Court in Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279
(1991), developed a theory for distinguishing between constitutional
“trial errors,” which can be harmless, and constitutional
10
Id. (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)).
11
Id. (citing Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)).
12
Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 (1970).
98
“structural defects,” which cannot. The Court explained that trial
error “occur[s] during the presentation of the case to the jury” and
is amenable to harmless error analysis because it “may . . . be
quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented
in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. at 307-08. At the other end of the spectrum
of constitutional errors lie “structural defects in the constitution
of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by ‘harmless-error’
standards. The entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end
is obviously affected by [structural defects such as] the absence
of counsel for a criminal defendant [and] the presence on the bench
of a judge who is not impartial.” Id. at 309-10. The existence of
a structural defect “affect[s] the framework within which the trial
proceeds, rather than [being] simply an error in the trial process
itself.” Id. at 310. A structural defect “transcends the criminal
process” because “‘[w]ithout these basic protections, a criminal
trial cannot reliably serve its function . . . and no criminal
punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.’” Id. at 310, 311
(quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 (1986)).
In Fulminante, the Court also recognized that since Chapman it
had added to the category of structural constitutional errors not
subject to harmless error the following: “unlawful exclusion of
members of the defendant’s race from a grand jury;”13 “the right to
13
Id. at 310 (citing Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986)).
99
self-representation at trial;”14 and “the right to public trial.”15
In Fulminante itself, the Court held that the admission of a coerced
confession is a trial error subject to harmless error analysis,
reversing its prior classification in Chapman of that kind of error
as a structural defect. Ultimately, however, a majority of the
Fulminante court held that the error was not harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt in that particular case and affirmed the Arizona
Supreme Court’s decision to grant Fulminante a new trial. Id. at
297-302.
Two years later, the Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Louisiana,
508 U.S. 275 (1993), a case on direct review, held that a
constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt jury instruction, which
carries with it “consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable
and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as a structural error.”
Id. at 282 (internal quotation marks omitted). As Justice Scalia
explained, the harmless error question Chapman poses for reviewing
courts is
not what effect the constitutional error might generally
be expected to have upon a reasonable jury, but rather
what effect it had upon the guilty verdict in the case at
14
Id. (citing McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 177-78 n.8
(1984)).
15
Id. (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 49 n.9 (1984)).
In addition to these categories, commentators have pointed to a
number of rights that have been designated as “structural” by the
Court and various lower courts, including the the right to a speedy
trial, a public trial, and the right to an appeal. See 2 RANDY HERTZ
& JAMES S. LIEBMAN, FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 31.3, at
1521-30 (5th ed. 2005).
100
hand. Harmless-error review looks . . . to the basis on
which the jury actually rested its verdict. The inquiry,
in other words, is not whether, in a trial that occurred
without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have
been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually
rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the
error. That must be so, because to hypothesize a guilty
verdict that was never in fact rendered—no matter how
inescapable the findings to support that verdict might
be—would violate the jury-trial guarantee.
Id. at 279 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). And,
as he elaborated,
Since, for the reasons [just] described . . . , there has
been no jury verdict within the meaning of the Sixth
Amendment, the entire premise of Chapman review is simply
absent. There being no jury verdict of
guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, the question whether
the same verdict of guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
would have been rendered absent the constitutional error
is utterly meaningless. There is no object, so to speak,
upon which harmless-error scrutiny can operate. The most
an appellate court can conclude is that a jury would
surely have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt—not that the jury’s actual finding of guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt would surely not have been different
absent the constitutional error. That is not enough.
The Sixth Amendment requires more than appellate
speculation about a hypothetical jury’s action, or else
directed verdicts for the State would be sustainable on
appeal; it requires an actual jury finding of guilty.
Id. at 280 (internal citations omitted).
Also in 1993, the Supreme Court in Brecht changed the harmless
error rule that applies to habeas corpus cases, holding that, on
collateral review of state court decisions, federal courts should
apply the standard of the Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750
(1946), which asks whether the error had a substantial and injurious
effect on the verdict, rather than the Chapman harmless beyond a
101
reasonable doubt standard, to decide whether a constitutional trial
error was harmless. But the Brecht court did not alter, and in fact
reaffirmed as longstanding, the rule that a constitutional
structural defect is reversible per se and not subject to harmless
error analysis. Citing Fulminante, the Court reiterated:
Trial error “occur[s] during the presentation of the case
to the jury,” and is amenable to harmless-error analysis
because it “may . . . be quantitatively assessed in the
context of other evidence presented in order to determine
[the effect it had on the trial].” At the other end of
the spectrum of constitutional errors lie “structural
defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which
defy analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” The
existence of such defects-deprivation of the right to
counsel, for example—requires automatic reversal of the
conviction because they infect the entire trial process.
Since our landmark decision in Chapman v. California, we
have applied the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
standard in reviewing claims of constitutional error of
the trial type.
Id. at 629-30 (alterations in original) (internal citations
omitted).
Accordingly, in habeas corpus proceedings, even after Brecht,
“structural” constitutional defects, as opposed to constitutional
“trial errors,” are always considered “prejudicial” and reversible
per se. Reviewing courts may not subject them to harmless error
analysis or declare them to be harmless under any standard.
Applying the foregoing principles, I conclude that the
constitutional violation that occurred when the pre-1991 Texas
capital sentencing system was applied to a case in which a defendant
had introduced mitigating evidence that reasonably may have caused
a sentencer to impose a sentence of less than death, the violation
102
was caused not by a “trial error” but by a “structural defect” that
is not subject to harmless error analysis.
More specifically, the defect plainly is not a “trial error,”
which “occur[s] during the presentation of the case to the jury,”
and is amenable to harmless-error analysis. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at
307. As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained in Fulminante, a “trial
error” is one which “may . . . be quantitatively assessed in the
context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether
its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante,
499 U.S. at 307-08. Under his analysis, a Penry I violation is not
a “trial error” because it is impossible for a reviewing court to
“quantitatively” assess what affect the mitigating evidence would
have had on the sentencing jury if it had been granted the
discretion to choose between a life or a death sentence for Penry.
Instead, the defect is a “structural defect[] in the constitution
of the trial mechanism, which def[ies] analysis by ‘harmless-error’
standards. The entire conduct of the [sentencing] from beginning to
end is obviously affected by” a structural defect in the sentencing
framework. Id. at 309-10. Consequently, Penry I held that the pre-
1991 Texas capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional as applied
to that case and made clear that in a new capital sentencing
proceeding the structural defect must be repaired so as to enable
the jury to fully consider Penry’s mitigation evidence and to
decline to impose the death penalty if it decided that sentence to
be inappropriate in Penry’s case.
103
That the constitutional violation in Penry I and this case
resulted from a “structural defect” that is not susceptible to
harmless error analysis is even more clearly shown by applying
Justice Scalia’s first analysis in Sullivan. According to Sullivan,
as a court reviewing for harmless error, we are instructed to
consider “not what effect the constitutional error might generally
be expected to have upon a reasonable jury, but rather what effect
it had upon the . . . verdict in the case at hand. . . . The
inquiry, in other words, is not whether, in a [sentencing
proceeding] that occurred without the error, a [death penalty] would
surely have been [imposed], but whether the [death penalty actually
imposed] in this [capital sentencing proceeding] was surely
unattributable to the error.” Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279. Once the
proper function of harmless error review is understood, “the illogic
of harmless-error review in the present case becomes evident.” Id.
at 280. Since there has been no jury consideration of Nelson’s
mitigating evidence for purposes of determining whether the death
penalty is necessary for just retribution in his case, and no jury
decision that the death penalty is indeed appropriate in his case,
“the entire premise of [harmless error] review is simply absent.”
Id. Because the jury could not fully consider the mitigating
evidence and there was no jury decision upon whether the death
penalty is appropriate here, the question of whether the same
decision to impose the death penalty “would have been rendered
absent the constitutional error is utterly meaningless.” Id. “The
104
most [we] can conclude is that a jury would surely have found” that
Nelson deserves the death penalty—not that the actual imposition of
the death penalty “would surely not have been different absent the
constitutional error.” Id. Such a determination on our part in the
present case would be nothing more than appellate speculation about
a hypothetical jury’s action, not a meaningful appellate harmless
error analysis of Nelson’s jury’s actual determination to impose the
death penalty.16
Having reached the foregoing conclusions after additional study
and a better understanding of the applicable legal principles, I
must acknowledge and correct the errors in the premise and the
result of my separate panel opinion in this case.
My initial error resulted from my faulty appreciation of the
correlation between (1) the Supreme Court’s statement in Johnson
that “[t]he standard against which we assess whether jury
instructions satisfy the rule of Lockett and Eddings was set forth
in Boyde v. California.” Johnson, 509 U.S. at 367; (2) the Court’s
application by analogy of the Boyde test in Johnson to determine
16
I am aware, of course, that Justice Scalia’s Sullivan
analysis is based on the Sixth Amendment, while a Penry violation
is based upon an Eighth Amendment defect in the framework of a
capital sentencing proceeding. Nevertheless, I believe that the
teachings of Sullivan are helpful and directly applicable to the
question of whether a Penry error is a structural defect not
subject to harmless error analysis. As Sullivan acknowledges, its
analysis is also fully consistent with Chief Justice Rehnquist’s
more general analysis for determining whether a constitutional
violation is a structural defect or a trial error in Fulminante,
which is not tied to the Sixth Amendment or to any other specific
constitutional amendment. See Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 281-82.
105
whether there was a Penry I constitutional violation; and (3) the
Court’s holding in Calderon v. Coleman, 525 U.S. 141 (1998), that
once the court of appeals had determined that the state trial
court’s ambiguous jury instruction was a constitutional trial error
under the Boyde test, it was bound to apply the harmless error
analysis mandated by Brecht and find the error harmful before
issuing a writ of habeas corpus. From these decisions, I
incorrectly concluded that every Penry I constitutional violation
detected by application of the Boyde test will be a “trial error”
susceptible to harmless error analysis. This does not follow,
however; on the contrary, it seems probable that most Penry I
violations will be structural defects that are reversible per se,
like the defect in the present case. By its nature a Penry I
violation consists of the absence of the jury’s constitutionally
required capability to consider and give effect to relevant
mitigating evidence. Therefore, I conclude that after detecting a
constitutional error by application of the Boyde test, it is
necessary for us to analyze the particular constitutional deficiency
according to the Supreme Court’s jurisprudential principles to
determine if it is a structural defect which is reversible per se
or a trial error that is susceptible to harmless error analysis
under Brecht.
Second, having erroneously concluded that a harmless error
analysis could be performed on the structural defect in this case,
I unintentionally compounded my mistake by attempting to apply the
106
Brecht test “to the hypothesizing of events that never in fact
occurred. Such an enterprise is not factfinding, but closer to
divination.” Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 86 (2004) (Scalia, J.,
concurring). In other words, I could not examine the jury’s
decision choosing the sentence in this case, because the jury here
never made such a decision. Instead, I erroneously performed what
I thought was a proper harmless error examination but which in
reality was an improper hypothesization of what the jury would have
done had it been enabled to give effect to the mitigating evidence
by selecting the sentence.
For these reasons, the deprivation of the defendant’s right to
a sentencing jury that was able to consider and give effect to all
of his relevant mitigating evidence by selecting the appropriate
sentence for him in the particular case, with consequences that are
necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably
qualifies as “structural defect”, not a “trial error.”
Conclusion
For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the majority
opinion.
107
EDITH H. JONES, Chief Judge, with whom JOLLY, SMITH, BARKSDALE,
GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges, join dissenting from the
majority opinion:
I. BACKGROUND
This court voted to rehear Nelson’s case en banc because
we are divided over how to interpret recent Supreme Court cases —
Penry II, Tennard, and Smith — concerning Texas’s pre-1991 death
penalty statute. Three years ago, we reheard the Robertson case
en banc because we were divided over interpretation of the Supreme
Court’s Texas death penalty case law leading up to and including
Penry II.1 The Court’s continuing mixed signals on issues of
critical importance to Texas’s criminal justice system are
unfortunate. It is to be hoped that, for the sake of certainty, the
Court will clarify its jurisprudence in the cases on which it just
granted certiorari.2
The majority opinion grants habeas relief to Nelson based
on an adjective. It concludes that Nelson’s mitigating evidence
could not be given “full effect” by the jury at sentencing due to
the inadequacy of the pre-1991 Texas death penalty special issues.
It concludes, based on some language in the Court’s opinions, that
1
In 1992, we reheard the Graham case en banc for the same
reason. Graham v. Collins, 950 F.2d 1009 (5th Cir. 1992) (en
banc), aff’d, 506 U.S. 461, 113 S. Ct. 892 (1993).
2
See Cole v. Dretke, 418 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.
granted, 2006 WL 1523202 (Oct. 13, 2006) (No. 05-11284); Brewer v.
Dretke, 442 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. granted, 2006 WL
1528242 (Oct. 13, 2006) (No. 05-11287).
108
“full effect,” not just “some effect,” is now the baseline for
constitutionally adequate jury evaluation of a defendant’s
mitigating evidence.
This conclusion marks a surprising result in a habeas
petition governed by AEDPA, which mandates affirmance of state
criminal convictions unless the state court’s decision was contrary
to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law. First, Nelson
proffered mitigating evidence of a sort that this court has
frequently encountered: (1) his mother rejected him and he had no
relationship with a child he had sired; (2) he was intoxicated by
drugs and alcohol when he committed the crime; (3) he had troubled
relationships with his brother and women; and (4) he suffered from
a treatable borderline personality disorder. This court has upheld
numerous capital sentences against claims that similar evidence
could not be given sufficient effect by Texas juries under the pre-
1991 statutes. The Supreme Court has frequently refused to review
those decisions, and prisoners were executed.3 Today’s result
3
See, e.g., Hernandez v. Johnson, 248 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied sub nom. Hernandez v. Cockrell, 534 U.S. 1043, 122 S.
Ct. 621 (2001); Emery v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997),
cert. denied, 525 U.S. 969, 119 S. Ct. 418 (1998); Davis v. Scott,
51 F.3d 457 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 992, 116 S. Ct. 525
(1995); Jacobs v. Scott, 31 F.3d 1319 (5th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1067, 115 S. Ct. 711 (1995); Lackey v. Scott,
28 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1086, 115 S.
Ct. 743 (1995); Clark v. Collins, 19 F.3d 959 (5th Cir. 1994),
cert. denied, 513 U.S. 966, 115 S. Ct. 432 (1994); Motley v.
Collins, 18 F.3d 1223 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960,
115 S. Ct. 418 (1994); Madden v. Collins, 18 F.3d 304 (5th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1156, 115 S. Ct. 1114 (1995); Russell
v. Collins, 998 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
109
suggests a “sea change”4 from those decisions and their
understanding of the Court’s case law.
Second, the majority’s reasoning implies that the Penry
line of cases, which was described by the Court as an “exception”
to the “rule,” commencing with Jurek, of the overall
constitutionality of the Texas sentencing issues,5 has become the
“new rule” to which Jurek, Franklin, Graham, and Johnson are now
exceptions. Yet Penry I is self-described as “not a new rule”
(which means that it may be applied retroactively in habeas cases),6
and none of its progeny has altered that characterization. Even
more potently, neither Penry II, Tennard, nor Smith overruled the
other line of cases. If, however, “full effect” has become the test
for mitigating evidence, rather than “some effect” or “within the
1185, 114 S. Ct. 1236 (1994); Callins v. Collins, 998 F.2d 269 (5th
Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1141, 114 S. Ct. 1127 (1994);
Drew v. Collins, 964 F.2d 411 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 509 U.S.
925, 113 S. Ct. 3044 (1993); Lincecum v. Collins, 958 F.2d 1271
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 957, 113 S. Ct. 417 (1992);
Barnard v. Collins, 958 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506
U.S. 1057, 113 S. Ct. 990 (1993); Mayo v. Lynaugh, 893 F.2d 683
(5th Cir. 1990), modified sub nom. Mayo v. Collins, 920 F.2d 251
(5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 898, 112 S. Ct. 272 (1991).
4
But cf. Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 365, 113 S. Ct. 2658,
2668 (1993) (stating that Penry did not “effec[t] a sea change in
this court’s view of the constitutionality of the former Texas
death penalty statute”) (quoting Graham, 506 U.S. at 474, 113 S.
Ct. at 901).
5
Graham, 506 U.S. at 491, 113 S. Ct. at 910.
6
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 315, 109 S. Ct. 2934, 2945
(1989)(Penry I).
110
effective reach of the jury,” then the majority’s decision is
irreconcilable with the Jurek-Franklin-Johnson-Graham line of cases.
This court cannot “underrule” the Supreme Court. Our duty
is to harmonize its decisions as well as possible. We are always
bound by the force of stare decisis, which caused Justice Kennedy
to comment in Johnson that
[t]he interests of the State of Texas, and of
the victims whose rights it must vindicate,
ought not to be turned aside when the State
relies upon an interpretation of the Eighth
Amendment approved by this Court, absent
demonstration that our earlier cases were
themselves a misinterpretation of some
constitutional command.
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 366, 113 S. Ct. at 2668 (citations omitted).
II. THE “CLEARLY ESTABLISHED” LAW
With this preface, a closer analysis of the majority’s
opinion can begin. Billy Ray Nelson’s habeas petition was rejected
by the state courts for reasons that had nothing to do with this
court’s now-abandoned “constitutional relevance” and “uniquely
severe” evidentiary thresholds. See Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S.
274, 124 S. Ct. 2562 (2004). The state courts conducted thoughtful
and thorough analyses of Nelson’s proffered mitigating evidence,
and determined that all such evidence was sufficiently encompassed
by the former Texas special issues and did not run afoul of Penry
v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 109 S. Ct. 2934 (1989)(Penry I).
111
Nevertheless, and despite the demanding AEDPA
“unreasonableness standard,”7 the majority now holds that Nelson is
entitled to relief because there was a “reasonable likelihood” that
Nelson’s jury was prevented from giving “full effect” to his
mitigating evidence. Whether the standard is that of “full effect”
or something else is the principal issue before this court. Only
last year, the author of today’s majority opinion stated the test
without a “full effect” gloss: “To grant relief on a Penry claim,
we must determine (1) whether the mitigating evidence has met the
‘low threshold for relevance,’ and, if so, (2) that the evidence
was beyond the effective scope of the jury.” Bigby v. Dretke,
402 F.3d 551, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2005) (Stewart, J.) (citations
omitted). The constitutional relevance of Nelson’s mitigating
evidence is not at issue here. But to say that a death penalty
must be upheld unless such evidence was “beyond the effective scope
of the jury,” as Bigby does (and as this dissent advocates), is a
7
The fact that a federal habeas court would have reached a
different conclusion than did the state court is insufficient to
merit habeas relief pursuant to AEDPA. See Brown v. Payton, 544
U.S. 133, 147, 125 S. Ct. 1432, 1442 (2005); Woodford v. Visciotti,
537 U.S. 19, 27, 123 S. Ct. 357, 361 (2002). The Court in Williams
was careful to note that “an unreasonable application of federal
law is different from an incorrect application of federal law,”
and, as such, the state court’s application of federal law must be
“objectively unreasonable,” as opposed to merely incorrect, for
habeas relief to be granted. Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-10, 120 S.
Ct. at 1521-22 (emphasis in original); see also Penry v. Johnson,
532 U.S. 782, 793, 121 S. Ct. 1910, 1919 (2001)(Penry II).
Consequently, this court overlooks the erroneous reasoning of state
courts, and reviews the reasonableness of their ultimate decision.
Neal v. Puckett, 286 F.3d 230, 236 (5th Cir. 2002)(en banc), cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 1104, 123 S. Ct. 963 (2003).
112
much different test than whether such evidence could be given “full
effect” by the jury.
The majority opinion cites every instance in which
opinions of the Court — in dicta or dissents — have employed the
term “full effect”. Unfortunately, the course of the Court’s
jurisprudence, in our view, is far more complex than reliance on
one adjective — “full” — would suggest.
In the beginning, in Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262,
96 S. Ct. 2950 (1976), the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the Texas special issues, noting that Texas’s
sentencing scheme permitted the jury to “consider whatever evidence
of mitigating circumstances the defense can bring before it.” Id.
at 273, 96 S. Ct. at 2957. The special issues were not seen to
preclude the consideration of mitigating evidence, but rather,
served to “guide[] and focus[] the jury’s objective consideration
of the particularized circumstances of the individual offense and
the individual offender.” Id. at 274, 96 S. Ct. at 2957. Such
focusing was seen as beneficial, as it promoted evenhandedness by
the jury, allowed an individualized assessment of the defendant’s
culpability, and guarded against arbitrary results. Cf. Lockett v.
Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 605-06, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 2965 (1978)
(invalidating Ohio death penalty statute that altogether prevented
the jury from considering relevant mitigating evidence; the Ohio
statute was explicitly compared unfavorably to the Texas statute).
There is thus no basis to conclude as a general matter that the
113
Texas special issues will fail to allow a jury to weigh a
petitioner’s mitigating evidence.
This assessment of the special issues was confirmed in
Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 108 S. Ct. 2320 (1988), as the
Supreme Court again rejected a challenge to the constitutionality
of the special issues. In that case the petitioner argued that
mitigating evidence of his good behavior while in prison presented
in his defense had relevance beyond the special issues,
particularly the second special issue, which concerns “future
dangerousness.” In denying habeas, the Court held that all
“relevant aspects” of the petitioner’s character could be
encompassed by the second special issue. Id. at 178, 108 S. Ct. at
2329. More important, in commenting on the adequacy of the special
issues, the plurality qualified the broad statement in Eddings v.
Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 101, 102 S. Ct. 869 (1982), that the sentencing
jury may not be precluded from considering “any relevant,
mitigating evidence.” In the plurality’s view, Eddings and
Lockett did not prevent a state from “structuring or giving shape
to the jury’s consideration of . . . mitigating factors.”
Franklin, 487 U.S. at 179, 108 S. Ct. at 2330. The Court thus
rejected the contention that a catch-all instruction allowing the
jury an independent basis for rendering a sentence other than death
was necessary, as such an instruction would overrule Jurek. Id. at
180 & n.10, 108 S. Ct. at 2330 & n.10. Jurek had approved the
114
Texas special issues, and the Court had repeatedly referred with
approval to Texas’s sentencing scheme, see Franklin, 487 U.S. at
182 n.11, 108 S. Ct. at 2331 n.11 (citing cases), precisely because
it reconciled the Court’s twin concerns for statutory structuring
and for jury flexibility to consider mitigating evidence. Justice
O’Connor’s concurrence in the judgment presaged her view in Penry I
that Jurek did not preclude a “claim that, in a particular case,”
the special issues were constitutionally inadequate. Penry I,
492 U.S. at 321, 109 S. Ct. at 2948. However, from Franklin,
including Justice O’Connor’s special concurrence, it is clear that
the Texas special issues ought to be constitutional in the vast
majority of cases.
Ultimately, the question of what exactly it means for a
court to give “full consideration” to a habeas petitioner’s
mitigating evidence was answered in the cases of Graham v. Collins,
506 U.S. 461, 113 S. Ct. 892 (1993), and Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S.
350, 113 S. Ct. 2658 (1993). Although Graham came to the Supreme
Court on collateral, as opposed to direct, review, and was thus
subject to analysis under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct.
1060 (1989), the case was nevertheless instrumental in explaining
the sufficiency of state death penalty statutes. In that case, the
petitioner argued that evidence of his youth and transient
upbringing had mitigating impact beyond the special issues. The
Court rejected this contention, again turning to Jurek. Death
penalty statutes only had to supply the defendant with a
115
“constitutionally adequate” consideration of his mitigating
evidence, which Texas’s special issues did. Graham, 506 U.S. at
470, 113 S. Ct. at 899. The majority explained Lockett, Eddings,
Skipper,8 Hitchcock,9 and Penry I as being constitutionally
defective because “relevant mitigating evidence was placed beyond
the effective reach of the jury.” Id. at 475, 113 S. Ct. at 902.
The fact that the defendant’s evidence might have “some arguable
relevance” beyond the special issues did not invalidate the special
issues. Id. at 475-76, 113 S. Ct. at 902. This is because
“virtually any mitigating evidence is capable of being viewed as
having some bearing on the defendant’s ‘moral culpability’ apart
from its relevance to the particular concerns embodied in the Texas
special issues.” Id. at 476, 113 S. Ct. at 902. Again, citing
Franklin and Jurek, the Court determined that Texas’s death penalty
statute allowed mitigating evidence to be adequately considered
while permissibly focusing the considerations of the sentencing
jury. Id. Graham, a majority opinion, thus stands for the
proposition that a Texas jury may constitutionally render a
sentence of death even where a defendant presents mitigating
evidence that has some arguable relevance beyond the special
issues.
8
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S. Ct. 1669
(1986).
9
Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 107 S. Ct. 1821 (1987).
116
Just months later, a majority of the Court in Johnson
reaffirmed the reasoning of Graham, in a direct appeal in which the
appellant’s youth as an offender was his major mitigating quality.
Justice Kennedy’s opinion drew heavily from Graham, re-emphasizing
that while
Lockett and Eddings prevent a state from
placing relevant mitigating evidence beyond
the effective reach of the sentencer, . . . we
have held that there is no . . .
constitutional requirement of unfettered
sentencing discretion in the jury, and states
are free to structure and shape mitigating
evidence in an effort to achieve a more
rational and equitable administration of the
death penalty.
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 362, 113 S. Ct. at 2666 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). Recapitulating the cases
construing Texas’s special issues, the Court confirmed a narrow
interpretation of Penry I, “making it clear that [Jurek, Lockett
and Eddings] can stand together with Penry.” Id. at 365,
113 S. Ct. at 2667-68. The Court closely analyzed youthfulness as
a mitigating factor and held that “there is ample room in the
assessment of future dangerousness for a juror to take account of
the difficulties of youth . . . .” Id. Penry’s condition, in
contrast, rendered him unable to learn from his mistakes and could
only be considered to aggravate, not lessen, his future
dangerousness.10
10
The Court quoted Justice Brennan’s dissent in Blystone, which
acknowledged the ability of the Texas special issues to afford jury
consideration of a defendant’s moral culpability:
117
The Court concluded Johnson with the observation,
originating in Graham, that Jurek would have to be overruled if,
whenever a defendant proffers mitigating evidence “that has some
arguable relevance beyond the special issues,” a fourth jury issue
in mitigation would be required. Id. at 372, 113 S. Ct. at 2671.
Such an issue, as the Court reasoned, would effectively abrogate
the state’s power, repeatedly affirmed by the Court, to structure
the consideration of mitigating evidence.
Graham and Johnson are majority opinions of the Court.11
Penry I is also a majority opinion, but Penry I represented a fact-
specific exception to the Jurek line of cases. This was made
abundantly clear in Graham, 506 U.S. at 475, 113 S. Ct. at 902.
[The two special issues] require the jury to
do more than find facts supporting a
legislatively defined aggravating
circumstance. Instead, by focusing on the
deliberateness of the defendant's actions and
his future dangerousness, the questions compel
the jury to make a moral judgment about the
severity of the crime and the defendant’s
culpability. The Texas statute directs the
imposition of the death penalty only after the
jury has decided that the defendant’s actions
were sufficiently egregious to warrant death.
Id. at 371, 113 S. Ct. at 2671 (quoting Blystone v. Pennsylvania,
494 U.S. 299, 322, 110 S.Ct. 1078, 1091 (1990) (Brennan, J.,
dissenting)).
11
Notably, in both Graham and Johnson, spirited dissents
capture the same debate over “full effect” and “some effect” that
preoccupies us still; but the advocates of “full effect” lost.
See, e.g., Graham, 506 U.S. at 504, 113 S. Ct. at 917 (Souter, J.,
dissenting); Johnson, 509 U.S. at 374, 113 S. Ct. at 2672.
(O’Connor, J., dissenting).
118
What distinguished Penry I from the aforementioned cases was that,
according to Penry’s experts, he had extremely poor impulse
control, and, owing to his limited mental abilities, he was unable
to appreciate the consequences of his actions or learn from his
mistakes. Unlike the instant case, there was no suggestion that
Penry’s condition would improve; his brain damage was allegedly
permanent. Such evidence might have diminished Penry’s
culpability, but it also served to indicate, as all sides agreed,
that he would always be a threat to society. As such, with regard
to the “future dangerousness” special issue, Penry’s evidence
served “only as an aggravating factor” for the jury. Id. at 323,
109 S. Ct. at 2949. The defense found itself in the unenviable
position of arguing that a “juror should vote ‘no’ on one of the
special issues even if she believed the State had proved the answer
should be ‘yes.’” Id. at 325, 109 S. Ct. at 2950. The prosecution
in turn stressed that “the jurors had taken an oath to follow the
law, and that they must follow the instructions.” Id. This
created a uniquely unfortunate situation in which a reasonable
juror could credit the mitigating evidence and feel a sentence
other than death was warranted for Penry, yet nevertheless be
compelled to answer the special issues in the affirmative and
render a sentence of death. Unlike Graham and Johnson, in which
the juries had the ability to give at least “some effect” to the
mitigating evidence presented by the defendants, it was “impossible
to give meaningful mitigating effect” to Penry’s evidence through
119
the special issues. Graham, 506 U.S. at 474, 113 S. Ct. at 901.
The Penry I jury had “no vehicle for expressing the view that Penry
did not deserve to be sentenced to death.” Penry I, 492 U.S. at
326, 109 S. Ct. at 2951.12
To quote Graham again: “In Penry, the defendant’s
evidence was placed before the sentencer but the sentencer had no
reliable means of giving mitigating effect to that evidence.”
Graham, 506 U.S. at 475, 113 S. Ct at 902 (emphasis added).
Penry I was thus “limited . . . [in] its scope,” as otherwise, it
could not be consistent with Jurek and Lockett, both of which were
repeatedly reaffirmed by the Court. Johnson, 509 U.S. at 304,
113 S. Ct. at 2668. In short, the “clearly established law” as of
1994 is not, as the majority argue, the Penry I “full effect” test,
but instead consists of Penry I together with Graham, Johnson,
Franklin, and Jurek.
The Court’s subsequent decisions in Penry II, Tennard v.
Dretke, and Smith v. Texas have muddied the waters, but they have
not replaced, much less overruled, Jurek, Franklin, Graham, and
Johnson. Each of the more recent cases resolves a narrow
12
This reading of Penry I is entirely consistent with, and
indeed anticipates, the Court’s later decision in Penry v. Johnson,
532 U.S. 782, 121 S. Ct. 1910 (2001)(Penry II). As with Penry I,
the Penry II Court rejected as “arbitrary” a death penalty system
that would encourage a juror to provide a “false answer” to one of
the special issues, thereby violating his oath as a juror. Id. at
801, 121 S. Ct. at 1923. It is only in these rare circumstances
that a jury finds itself without a vehicle to provide a “reasoned
moral response” to the defendant’s evidence.
120
procedural issue. Penry II considered the sufficiency of a
“nullification instruction” to the jury that Texas courts thought
would alleviate the problem in Penry’s case. The Court explained
why the nullification instruction would cause jurors to violate
their oaths if they felt, notwithstanding that Penry’s condition
required a positive answer to his deliberateness and future
dangerousness, he was less culpable because of his mental
retardation. The Court’s opinion mentions “full effect” once, but
its overruling of the nullification instruction was not tied to
whether the jury could give “full effect” to Penry’s mitigating
evidence. The jurors’ catch-22 was independent of the amount of
the mitigating effect.
In Tennard, the Court held that the Fifth Circuit’s
“uniquely severe permanent handicap” and “nexus” tests for
identifying Penry evidence were incorrect, and that for COA
purposes, “reasonable jurists would find debatable or wrong the
District Court’s disposition of Tennard’s low-IQ-based Penry
claim.” Tennard, 542 U.S. at 289, 124 S. Ct. at 2573. Indeed,
Tennard found that the petitioner’s low IQ evidence had “the same
essential features” as Penry’s mental retardation evidence: His low
IQ could be considered irrelevant to mitigation while having only
aggravating relevance to his future dangerousness. Id. at 288,
113 S. Ct. at 2572. Tennard did not cite Graham or Johnson.
121
Because the decision expressly models its analysis on Penry I, it
cannot be said to extend Penry I or to undercut Graham or Johnson.
Nowhere does Tennard require that the jury be able to
give “full effect” to mitigating evidence in its sentencing
deliberations. Instead, the Court quotes a potpourri of earlier
decisions requiring states to enable the jury to “consider and give
effect to” mitigating evidence;13 forbidding states to “preclude the
sentencer from considering any ‘relevant mitigating evidence’”;14
and asserting virtually no limits on a defendant’s ability to
proffer relevant mitigating evidence.15 Tennard compels Texas
courts confronted with low IQ evidence to submit a proper special
issue; Tennard also counsels fact-specific evaluation of
petitioners’ mitigation evidence for its application within the
pre-1991 Texas special issues.
A final word about Tennard: Justice Kennedy concurred.
Does this mean that he had changed his mind since he wrote Johnson,
or that he viewed Tennard as reconcilable with Johnson? A
“reasonable jurist” would draw the latter conclusion, since one can
hardly assume Justice Kennedy would have failed to explain his
13
Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 377-78, 110 S. Ct. 1190,
1196 (1990). Boyde held that jury discretion could be guided by
the States.
14
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 822, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 2606
(1991).
15
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 114, 102 S. Ct. 869, 877
(1982).
122
departure from the very explicit cabining of Penry I that he
accomplished with the majority opinion in Johnson.
Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 125 S. Ct. 400 (2004), is
the most recent case in the Penry line, and it, too, represents a
narrow procedural holding. The Court reversed a Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals decision that utilized the “constitutional
relevance” tests adopted by the Fifth Circuit but rejected in
Tennard, and purported to distinguish a nullification instruction
from the instruction overruled by the Supreme Court in Penry II.
That the Court would enforce its prior decisions with a per curiam
reversal is hardly surprising. That the Court would employ such a
brief opinion to expand the reach of Penry I and undermine Graham
and Johnson sub silentio is unlikely. The majority in this case
points to language supporting the “unlikely” reading. Smith
initially quotes Penry II as holding a similar nullification
instruction inadequate to enable a jury to give “full
consideration” and “full effect” to defendant’s mitigating
circumstances. In the third paragraph of the decision, the Court
states: “Approximately two years prior to the trial, we had held
that presenting only these two special issues, without additional
instructions regarding the jury’s duty to consider mitigation
evidence, violated the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 39, 125 S. Ct. at
402 (citation omitted). After explaining the plain errors in the
state court’s decision, the Smith Court states that: “as in
Penry II, the burden of proof on the State was tied by law to
123
findings of deliberateness and future dangerousness that had
little, if anything, to do with the mitigation evidence petitioner
presented.” Id. at 48, 125 S. Ct. at 407 (footnote omitted).
Smith’s mitigation evidence included potentially organic learning
disabilities and speech handicaps; low IQ and special education in
school; good behavior in school; a drug-addicted criminal father;
and his age of nineteen at the date of the offense. Smith
concludes, without analysis of the types of mitigating evidence,
that because it was “relevant mitigation evidence for the jury
under Tennard and Penry I,” the nullification instruction was
inadequate under Penry II. Id. at 48-49, 125 S. Ct. at 407.
This court may not overlook the potentially broad
language in Smith. On the other hand, Smith failed to cite or
distinguish Jurek, Franklin, Graham, or Johnson. Since Chief
Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy joined Smith, the question
again arises whether they did so in deference not just to a limited
view of Penry II and Tennard but also, and without explanation, to
a de facto overruling of Graham and Johnson through Smith’s casual
incorporation of the appellant’s youth, good school behavior, and
disadvantaged (not abused) childhood as Penry mitigation evidence.
Finally, notwithstanding Smith’s two references to “full
effect,” the opinion also quotes Penry II as recognizing that “the
key under Penry I is that the jury be able to ‘consider and give
effect to [a defendant’s mitigation evidence] in imposing
124
sentence.’” Smith, 543 U.S. at 46, 125 S. Ct. at 406 (emphasis in
original).
“Giving effect” to mitigating evidence is not the same as
allowing a jury to give “full effect.” The latter formulation, in
effect, rejects a state’s ability to focus the jury’s consideration
of mitigating evidence. Here lies the crux of our difference with
today’s majority opinion. Despite its efforts to turn narrow
procedural decisions and imprecise language into a constitutional
mandate of “full effect,” the Supreme Court’s case law will not
support that conclusion. As an inferior court, we can overlook
neither Jurek, Franklin, Graham, and Johnson, nor Penry I,
Penry II, Tennard and Smith. Sadly, for the State of Texas, for
certainty and stare decisis, and for defendants who deserve to know
their fate before the last minute, we seem no further along in
understanding the Court’s pronouncements today than we were fifteen
years ago when we reheard Graham en banc. See Graham v. Collins,
950 F.2d 1009 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc), aff’d, 506 U.S. 461,
113 S. Ct. 892 (1993).
The interrelated rules we believe must be holistically
drawn from the Court’s decisions — until we are told otherwise —
are as follows: First, courts must consider all mitigating
evidence for its comprehensibility within the Texas special issues.
Second, if, as with Penry I and Tennard low IQ evidence, the
proffered evidence has only aggravating force beyond the issues of
125
deliberateness and future dangerousness, re-sentencing is required.
In such cases, the proffered evidence was “beyond the effective
reach of the jury” such that “the jury was precluded from
considering the evidence.” Third, evidence of such qualities as a
defendant’s youthfulness at the date of the crime and a “transient”
upbringing16 can, however, be considered within the special issues.
III. THE MITIGATING EVIDENCE
Nelson offered in evidence that (l) his mother rejected
him; (2) he had troubled relationships with his brother and women;
(3) he was denied a relationship with his child; (4) he was
intoxicated by drugs and alcohol when he committed the crime; and
(5) he suffered from a treatable borderline personality disorder.
The majority opinion dwells principally on the last element,
subsidiarily on the rejection by his mother, and not at all on
Nelson’s substance abuse or other troubled relationships.
Consequently, we focus on the first two characteristics. It must
be pointed out, though, that the majority’s “full effect” test
apparently renders the pre-1991 Texas sentencing hearing
constitutionally inadequate for any mitigating evidence except for
youthfulness (and good behavior in prison).17 After all, nearly any
mitigating evidence can be said to have “some arguable relevance”
beyond the deliberateness and future dangerousness inquiries.
16
See Graham, 506 U.S. at 476, 113 S. Ct. at 902.
17
See Franklin, 487 U.S. at 179 n.9, 108 S. Ct. at 2330 n.9.
126
Nelson’s expert, Dr. Hickman, testified that Nelson had
anger issues resulting from his childhood experiences, and that
treatment for his borderline personality disorder would require
long-term psychotherapy and medication. Hickman also suggested
that individuals with borderline personality disorder tend to be
difficult to treat, and success with Nelson was not guaranteed.
However, Hickman further testified that if successfully treated,
Nelson would no longer represent a danger to society.
Nelson’s evidence is fundamentally distinguishable from
that of Penry, who was presented as being beyond treatment because
of an insufficient mental acuity and inability to learn from his
mistakes. In contrast, Nelson’s defense offered the jury evidence
that Nelson could get better, and that if he spent the rest of his
life in prison, he would no longer represent a future danger to
society. Unlike Penry, but like the defendant in Graham, Nelson’s
attorneys could honestly and “vigorously urge[] the jury to answer
‘no’ to the special issues based upon” the evidence presented.
Graham, 506 U.S. at 475, 113 S. Ct. at 902.
With regard to the “deliberateness” of the crime,
Nelson’s jury could have concluded, based on his maternally-
deprived upbringing, his “anger issues” and his poor impulse
control, that he did not sexually abuse his victims and murder
Charla Wheat “deliberately.” He was, in other words, too warped to
have acted responsibly. Alternatively, the jury could have
balanced these mitigating factors against his self-induced drug
127
abuse and intoxication, and the speculation embodied in
Dr. Hickman’s connecting his behavioral problems to the crime, and
found this crime to be “deliberate.”
Nelson’s jury was also presented with clear alternatives
in regard to future dangerousness. It could believe Hickman’s
testimony and conclude that Nelson was less morally culpable, given
his mental illness, and that with proper treatment, Nelson would
not present a future danger. Alternatively, the jury could follow
the prosecution’s theory that Nelson was fully culpable for his
actions and would continue to be dangerous even in prison.18 That
the jury chose the latter assessment of Nelson does not mean that
habeas relief must issue. Indeed, in order to even make a
plausible argument that a Penry violation occurred in the instant
case, the majority recasts the record to suggest that Nelson would
be untreatable. This is simply not the case. Dr. Hickman’s
purpose for testifying was not just to illustrate Nelson’s
condition but to demonstrate his potential for change. That
potential clearly found mitigating expression in both the
“deliberateness” and “future dangerousness” issues.19
18
The prosecution did not agree with Hickman’s assessment of
Nelson’s mental condition, as it did not have sufficient evidence
to make a diagnosis. Its expert, Dr. Grigson, concluded only that
Nelson would continue to pose a threat.
19
The majority further relies upon a string of hypotheticals
to create its Penry violation. If his jury believed that Nelson
suffered from borderline personality disorder; if that jury
believed that Nelson was untreatable or would not receive proper
treatment in prison; and if that jury concluded that Nelson’s
128
Because this case is reviewed under AEDPA, we must, as
the majority acknowledges, find the state courts’ resolution of the
Penry issue not simply wrong, but unreasonable. Further, the
“unreasonableness” must here stem from a conclusion that there is
a “reasonable likelihood” — not a “mere possibility” — that the
jury applied the two issues “in a way that prevents the
consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.” Johnson,
509 U.S. at 367-68, 113 S. Ct. at 2669 (paraphrasing Boyde,
494 U.S. at 380, 110 S. Ct. at 1198). The “reasonable likelihood”
standard is applied according to a “commonsense understanding of
the record in the light of all that has taken place at the trial.”
Id. at 381, 110 S. Ct. at 1198. Finally, the fact that “a juror
might view the evidence . . . as aggravating, as opposed to
mitigating, does not mean that the rule of Lockett is violated.”
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 368, 113 S. Ct. at 2669. As illustrated
above, there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the
special issues in an unconstitutional manner; in expressing its
“reasoned moral response” to Nelson’s evidence, the jury could have
relied upon Hickman’s testimony and concluded that Nelson would not
remain a danger in prison. Based on our interpretation that
mental illness had aggravating effect as to the special issues,
only then is it possible that the jury might have felt compelled to
answer “yes” as to the future dangerousness special issue, even if
the jury wished a sentence other than death due to Nelson’s
borderline condition. This attenuated theory of the jury
deliberations extends Penry I far beyond its intended boundaries,
without instructions from the Supreme Court.
129
Johnson and Graham remain good law, coexisting with Penry and its
progeny, we cannot subscribe to the unreasonableness of the state
courts’ determination.
Clearly, the evidence of a treatable mental condition and
a deprived family background could be afforded decisive, if perhaps
not “full,” mitigating effect under the pre-1991 sentencing scheme.
The Court stated in Graham:
We see no reason to regard the circumstances
of Graham’s family background and positive
character traits in a different light [from
Franklin]. Graham’s evidence of transient
upbringing [while his mother spent long
periods hospitalized for a “nervous
condition”] more closely resembles Jurek’s
evidence of age, employment history, and
familial ties than it does Penry’s evidence of
mental retardation and harsh physical abuse.
Graham, 506 U.S. at 476, 113 S. Ct. at 902.
The Court, of course, held in Graham that to require an
additional jury instruction would be a “new rule” of constitutional
law. We do not pretend that Nelson’s evidence of personality
disorder and maternal rejection is on all fours with Jurek,
Franklin, Graham, or Johnson. But the majority cannot pretend that
such evidence — of a treatable mental condition and not “harsh
physical abuse” — compels habeas relief based on Penry I, Penry II,
Tennard or Smith.20
20
The holding of Graham, based on Teague, is that Penry I did
not dictate constitutional relief based on the defendant’s
youthfulness. How, then, could the different evidence of a
treatable mental disorder have become so indistinguishable from
Penry as to render the state court’s decision in this case
130
Reinforcing our conclusion is the inconsistency between
the majority’s analysis of a treatable mental disorder today and
our court’s analysis of an untreatable mental condition —
schizophrenia — a year ago. See Bigby v. Dretke, 402 F.3d 551 (5th
Cir. 2005). Today’s majority overrules the decision in Lucas v.
Johnson, 132 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1998), which held that the Texas
special issues furnished sufficient scope for a jury to give effect
to evidence of a treatable mental condition. Id. at 1082-83. Last
year, in Bigby, the author of today’s opinion distinguished Lucas
because of the different ramifications of a treatable mental
disorder under the Texas special issues. Bigby, 402 F.3d at 571.
If Bigby found no conflict between Lucas and the Court’s decisions
in the Penry line, how can the majority assert today that a
comparable decision by the Texas courts was “unreasonable?”21
IV. CONCLUSION
Nelson’s evidence had constitutionally adequate
mitigating effect as to both of the special issues, and his jury
was neither foreclosed from giving effect to the evidence by the
Texas special issues, nor was it put in the position of rendering
unreasonable?
21
Today’s majority decision is also squarely contrary to the
recent decision in Cole v. Dretke, 418 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2005)
cert. granted, that the “Texas special issues allowed the jury to
give ‘full consideration and full effect’” to Cole’s mitigating
evidence of a destructive family background. Id. at 511.
Nevertheless, two members of today’s majority panel joined the Cole
decision.
131
a false verdict, as in Penry I and Penry II. If the majority’s
expansive reading of Penry compels the result reached today, it is
to be hoped that the Supreme Court will so inform us definitively
in the cases now pending before it. Because none of the Court’s
precedents to date compels the “full effect” test or the result
reached by the majority, it cannot be said that the state courts
unreasonably applied federal law. I would deny habeas relief, and
therefore, I respectfully dissent.
132
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I enthusiastically join the superb dissenting opinions penned
respectively by Chief Judge Jones and Judges Clement and Owen.
I dissent separately, not to discuss the merits of this case but to
highlight the embarrassing procedural tangle caused by the various
actions of the Supreme Court and this court in Penry-related cases.
In its Penry cases, this court has been inconsistent in decid-
ing whether to (1) finalize a case and issue the mandate, (2) grant
en banc rehearing, or (3) hold a case indefinitely. Presumably the
instant case (Nelson) was taken en banc to reconcile this circuit’s
Penry jurisprudenceSSthat is, to harmonize our numerous Penry-
related cases with each other and with the opaque pronouncements of
the Supreme Court.1 But if that were true, one would think the
court would want to hold up on finalizing any Penry decisions until
the en banc court has spoken. Instead, we have had a potpourri of
actions on our various Penry cases. Any well-intentioned plan to
step back and comprehensively review our Penry jurisprudence has
crashed and burned.
1
In its most recent explication of its habeas corpus
jurisprudence, the Court has reminded us that in interpreting
“clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), we
look only to the Court’s holdings and not its dicta. Carey v.
Musladin, No. 05-785, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 9587, at *8-*9 (U.S. Dec. 11,
2006) (reversing a finding by the Ninth Circuit that the state
court had unreasonably applied clearly established Federal law).
133
An examination of the time line in this court’s Penry cases
only adds to the confusion. The panel decision in Nelson was is-
sued on August 12, 2003.2 The Supreme Court issued Tennard v.
Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), on June 24, 2004. Four days later the
Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Nelson “for further
consideration in light of Tennard . . . .”3
On remand in Nelson, this court issued its panel opinion on
March 1, 2006, stating that “[t]his death penalty case is reconsid-
ered pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instruction following its sum-
mary grant of certiorari and the vacating of our prior opinion
based on Tennard . . . .”4 No petition for rehearing or for re-
hearing en banc was ever filed in Nelson. Nonetheless, on
March 13, 2006, this court, “on the Court’s own motion,” voted to
rehear Nelson en banc.5
In Tennard, which is the most prominent recent Fifth Circuit
Penry case, however, no judge held the mandate to await an en banc
decision in Nelson. Tennard is the most significant of our current
Penry cases because the Supreme Court vacated the panel opinion
2
See Nelson v. Cockrell, 77 Fed. Appx. 209 (5th Cir. Aug. 12,
2003).
3
Nelson v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 934 (June 28, 2004).
4
Nelson v. Dretke, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 5272, at *1 (5th Cir.
Mar. 1, 2006).
5
Nelson v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 912, 912 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2006)
(per curiam).
134
and, in an opinion by Justice O’Connor, rebuked this court for its
approach to Penry questions.6 On remand in Tennard, a Fifth Cir-
cuit panel issued its opinion on March 1, 2006, which is coinciden-
tally the same day the panel opinion in Nelson, remanded in light
of Tennard, also issued.7 Yet, no judge held the mandate in Ten-
nard, and no effort was made either to reconsider Tennard en banc
or to put that case on hold pending en banc review in Nelson. One
can only guess that a significant fact for some judges was that the
habeas petitioner had prevailed on remand in Tennard; moreover, the
losing party (the state) did not petition for rehearing.
Other Penry cases of note were active at this time. On Novem-
ber 15, 2004, the Supreme Court had vacated and remanded Cole v.
Dretke, 99 Fed. Appx. 523 (5th Cir. May 19, 2004) (per curiam), for
reconsideration in light of Tennard.8 The panel issued its opinion
on remand in Cole v. Dretke, 418 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. July 22, 2005),
and affirmed the judgment denying habeas relief. In Cole v. Dret-
ke, 443 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2006) (per curiam), however,
and unlike in Nelson, this court, after a poll, denied rehearing en
banc over a strong dissent that included the following statement:
“The responsible, efficient and just course . . . would have been
6
See Tennard, 542 U.S. at 282-89 (2004) (O’Connor, J.).
7
See Tennard v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2006).
8
See Abul-Kabir v. Dretke, 543 U.S. 985 (Nov. 15, 2004).
135
. . . for us to resolve promptly en banc the important issues
raised by the Cole panel decision and allow time for possible cor-
rection by the Supreme Court before permitting our numerous other
death penalty panels to generate more decisions without either en
banc or renewed Supreme Court guidance.”9 This was four days after
the court had granted en banc review in Nelson.
Also pending is Coble v. Dretke, 444 F.3d 345 (5th Cir.
Mar. 22, 2006), in which the panel, vacating the opinion it had is-
sued in Coble v. Dretke, 417 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. July 18, 2005),
took specific account of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Tennard
and Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37 (Nov. 15, 2004) (per curiam), in
affirming the dismissal of the habeas petition.10 A judge placed
a hold on the mandate in Coble from August 8, 2005, through March
22, 2006, and again from July 17, 2006, to the present. A petition
for rehearing en banc is pending in Coble, but there has been no
en banc poll.
Somewhat similarly situated to Coble is the Brewer case, in
which the panel issued its initial opinion on May 31, 2005.11 On
June 21, 2005, a judge placed a hold on the mandate and has not re-
leased it in the intervening eighteen months. On March 1,
9
Cole, 443 F.3d at 443 (Dennis, J., dissenting from denial of
rehearing en banc).
10
Coble, 444 F.3d at 358 n.11.
11
See Brewer v. Dretke, 410 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. May 31, 2005).
136
2006SSthe same day the panel opinion issued in NelsonSSthe panel,
in Brewer v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2006) (per cur-
iam), denied the petition for panel rehearing (taking no action on
the petition for rehearing en banc), withdrew its opinion, and is-
sued a new one. A petition for rehearing en banc remains pending
in Brewer.
And then there is, finally, Garcia v. Quarterman, 456 F.3d 463
(5th Cir. July 13, 2006). There the panel grappled with Tennard
and with this court’s relevant caselaw, including Brewer and Bigby
v. Dretke, 402 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. Mar. 8, 2005), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 239 (2005). A judge held the mandate in Garcia on July 21,
2006, and a petition for rehearing en banc remains pending.
The Supreme Court’s responses to the foregoing have been some-
what perplexing after the issuance of its latest (2004) opinion in
Tennard. The most surprising development is that on October 13,
2006, the Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in
Brewer.12 This is peculiar, because in Brewer the Fifth Circuit has
not yet acted on the petition for rehearing en banc and has not is-
sued the mandate. Possibly the High Court relied on the inaccurate
statement in Brewer’s certiorari petition that his “petition for
rehearing en banc was eventually denied.”13 In fact, our order
12
See Brewer v. Quarterman, 127 S. Ct. 433 (Oct. 13, 2006).
13
Petition for Writ of Certiorari in No. 05-11287, Brewer v.
Quarterman, at 2.
137
withdrawing the first opinion specifically stated that “[t]he peti-
tion for panel rehearing is DENIED.”14 Brewer remains pending in
this court, awaiting, at least in part, the issuance of the en banc
decision in Nelson.
There is no jurisdictional bar to Supreme Court review of non-
final cases from the courts of appeals, but it is unusual.15 Per-
haps the Court, in granting review in Brewer despite its non-
finality in this court, was influenced by Brewer’s insistence that
the “court’s intervention is once again necessary to resolve once
and for all the enduring confusion in the courts below regarding
the scope of Penry.”16 Yet, the postures of Brewer, Coble, and Gar-
cia are the same in this court: In all three, panel opinions deny-
ing habeas relief have been issued, petitions for rehearing en banc
have been filed, and the mandates have been stayed. The only dif-
ference is that in Brewer the petitioner, based on a mistaken view
of the procedural status of the case in the court of appeals, filed
a certiorari petition and has been rewarded (for whatever reason)
with the Supreme Court’s grant of review.
The Supreme Court has scheduled a trifecta of Penry cases for
argument on January 17, 2007. The same day it granted certiorari
14
Brewer, 442 F.3d at 275 (emphasis added).
15
ROBERT L. STERN ET AL., SUPREME COURT PRACTICE 75-78 (8th ed. 2002)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)).
16
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra, at 13.
138
in Brewer, it also did so in Cole, with Cole and Brewer consoli-
dated for argument.17 One week before granting certiorari in Brewer
and Cole, the Court granted review in a Penry case from the Texas
state courts.18 The Court’s willingness to address Penry questions
once again is welcome. Perhaps the High Court will issue a tongue-
lashing like the one Justice O’Connor penned in Tennard.19 If so,
it will be despite this court’s honest attempts to apply the
Court’s sundry pronouncements.
As Chief Judge Jones wisely states in her dissent in Nelson,
“[t]his court cannot ‘underrule’ the Supreme Court. Our duty is to
harmonize its decisions as well as possible. We are always bound
by the force of stare decisis.” So maybe, on the other hand, the
current Court will determine that the various panels of this court,
in the cases discussed above, have correctly applied the Court’s
17
See Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 127 S. Ct. 432 (Oct. 13,
2006).
18
See Ex parte Smith, 185 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 1,
2006), cert. granted, 127 S. Ct. 377 (Oct. 6, 2006).
19
“Despite paying lipservice to the principles guiding issuance
of a COA, . . . the Fifth Circuit . . . invoked its own restrictive
gloss on Penry I . . . .” Tennard, 542 U.S. at 283. “The Fifth
Circuit’s test has no foundation in the decisions of this Court.”
Id. at 284. “The Fifth Circuit was likewise wrong to have refused
to consider the debatability of the Penry question . . . .” Id. at
287. “[T]he Fifth Circuit’s screening test has no basis in our
precedents . . . .” Id. It is interesting to note Justice
O’Connor’s repeated reference to this court not as “the Court of
Appeals,” but as “the Fifth Circuit,” apparently to emphasize her
obvious pique.
139
precedents, as my dissenting colleagues show in their able
opinions.
In this regard, it is unfortunate that the en banc majority in
Nelson has insisted on issuing its majority opinion at this time,
in the wake of the grants of certiorari that I have noted. In-
stead, this court should have denied en banc rehearing in all the
recent Penry cases (Nelson, Brewer, Cole, Coble, and Garcia), so as
to give the Supreme Court the option of picking various ones of
them for review. By our piecemeal and inconsistent approach, we
have the incongruous situation of some cases held and others not,
and of some with certiorari petitions and some not, and lastly of
a case (Nelson) in which this court granted en banc review without
even the benefit of a petition for rehearing, and now has insisted
on issuing an en banc majority opinion in Nelson without the pre-
dictable guidance that will come from the Supreme Court’s review in
the cases to be argued on January 17. The en banc majority’s rush
to judgment is, in that sense, truly regrettable, and I respect-
fully dissent.
140
EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge, with whom JONES, Chief Judge,
JOLLY, SMITH, BARKSDALE, and GARZA Circuit Judges, join dissenting
from the majority opinion:
AEDPA requires us to defer to the state habeas court’s
determination that the jury was not prevented from considering all
the mitigating evidence within the special issues because that
holding is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of
Supreme Court precedent.1 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
While this court has had many occasions to address Penry
issues generally, the Supreme Court has spoken relatively very few
times on the contentious issue presently before us: Jurek (youth,
employment history, aid to family), Franklin (good behavior in
prison), Penry I & II (mental retardation, child abuse), Graham
(youth, transient upbringing, good character traits),2 Johnson
(youth), Tennard (constitutional relevance, low IQ), and Smith
(constitutional relevance, Penry II instruction, youth, organic
1
The district court quotes the following language from the
state habeas court’s decision: “The jury charge and the special
issues allowed the jurors to give effect to all presented
mitigating evidence in their answers to the special issues . . . .”
D. Ct. Order at 37. A more precise statement, per Boyde v.
California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990), would have been that there is
no reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the special issues
in a way that prevented it from considering Nelson’s mitigating
evidence. Nonetheless, there is no material difference for
purposes of our review.
2
Graham, as the majority opinion notes, merely held that
precedent in 1984 did not dictate that the petitioner should be
granted relief based on his potentially mitigating evidence.
141
learning disability, low IQ, good behavior in school, drug-addicted
father). None of those cases deal specifically with the type of
mitigating evidence offered by Nelson, i.e., familial discord
(rejection by his mother, trouble with his brother, inability to
relate to his illegitimate child), drug and alcohol addiction and
abuse, and (theoretically treatable) borderline personality
disorder. Further, none of those cases gave the Supreme Court the
opportunity—now before us—to apply AEDPA principles to focus on the
reasonableness of the state court’s ruling rather than the merits
of the petitioner’s claim.3 Since the Supreme Court has not spoken
to the precise type of mitigating evidence at issue here—and
certainly had not done so by 1994, when Nelson’s conviction became
final—it will be difficult to say that, under AEDPA, the state
habeas court acted contrary to or unreasonably applied federal law
as determined by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133
(2005), is on-point and deserves more emphasis than the majority
3
Only Penry II and Tennard are post-AEDPA federal habeas
cases. The majority opinion’s contention that the Court was “fully
aware of the analytical constraints imposed by the deferential
AEDPA standard of review,” Maj. Op. at 18, is a gentle way of
obscuring that the Court did not decide whether the evidence fit
within the special issues, since that question had been answered in
Penry I. Rather, the Court granted habeas relief based on the
Texas trial court’s use of a nullification instruction. In
Tennard, the Court similarly did not consider whether the
mitigating evidence fit within the jury instructions. Rather, the
Court struck down this circuit’s “constitutional relevance”
screening test and remanded for further proceedings.
142
opinion grants it. There, the California Supreme Court, applying
Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990), had held that there was
no reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it was required to
disregard the petitioner’s mitigating evidence while applying the
jury instructions.4 Payton, 544 U.S. at 139. The Ninth Circuit,
concluding that the state court unreasonably erred, granted habeas
relief.5 Id. at 140. Stringently applying AEDPA’s deferential
standard of review, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
Id. at 141–43. The Court held that, under AEDPA, “[e]ven on the
assumption that [the state court’s] conclusion was incorrect, it
was not unreasonable, and is therefore just the type of decision
that AEDPA shields on habeas review.” Id. at 143. Concurring,
Justice Breyer stated that, “In my view, this is a case in which
Congress’ instruction to defer to the reasonable conclusions of
4
The challenged instructions included the “factor (k)
instruction,” which is California’s version of a catch-all
instruction. “[I]t directed jurors to consider any other
circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though
it is not a legal excuse for the crime.” Payton, 544 U.S. at 137
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Even though
called a “catch-all,” this instruction sometimes may act to
preclude the jury from considering relevant mitigating evidence.
See Belmontes v. Brown, 414 F.3d 1094, 1102 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).
5
The state court had held that Payton’s mitigating evidence
(sincere commitment to God, involvement in prison ministry, calming
effect on other prisoners) of his post-crime behavior could be
considered within the jury instructions. The Ninth Circuit granted
habeas relief, believing that Supreme Court precedent upholding the
factor (k) instruction applied only to pre-crime evidence. Payton,
544 U.S. at 140.
143
state-court judges makes a critical difference.” Id. at 148
(Breyer, J., concurring).
Were I a California state judge, I would likely hold
that Payton’s penalty-phase proceedings violated the
Eighth Amendment. . . . [T]here might well have been a
reasonable likelihood that [the] jury interpreted [the
challenged jury instruction] in a way that prevent[ed] it
from considering constitutionally relevant mitigating
evidence. . . .
Nonetheless . . . [, f]or the reasons that the Court
discusses, I cannot say that the California Supreme Court
decision fails [AEDPA’s] deferential test.
Id. at 148–49 (fourth alteration in original) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
While Payton does not address the Texas special issues, it
nonetheless supports the proposition that, under AEDPA, federal
courts sitting in habeas review of state convictions must defer to
reasonable state court determinations regarding the
constitutionality of jury instructions. Where, as here, there is
no directly applicable Supreme Court precedent and the question is
so close, a federal court cannot conclude that the state court
unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent. See Payton, 544 U.S.
at 140 (noting that the Ninth Circuit “cited no precedent of this
Court to support” its position that the state court acted contrary
144
to or unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent). See also
Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17 (2003) (“A federal court may
not overrule a state court for simply holding a view different from
its own, when the precedent from this Court is, at best,
ambiguous.”).6
Our circuit has spent considerable time and effort trying to
divine whether the jury was precluded from considering various
mitigating evidence within the confines of the special issues.
Such a close review of state court convictions is neither envisaged
nor permissible under the standard of review imposed by AEDPA.
Congress has limited the scope of our habeas review, and we must
accede. Under that Congressionally-mandated deferential review, I
simply fail to see how a majority of this court can hold
unequivocally that the state habeas court not just has erred
(certainly a debatable prospect) but has erred unreasonably so as
to merit federal habeas relief.
6
Though the majority opinion purports to apply AEDPA and not
merely disagree with the state habeas court decision, see Maj. Op.
at 24 & 35, the analysis and conclusion of the majority opinion
clearly show otherwise. The question is not whether there is a
reasonable likelihood that the jury was precluded from giving
consideration and effect to Nelson’s mitigating evidence, see Maj.
Op. at 2, 24, 29, 30, 33, & 41; rather, the question is whether it
was unreasonable for the state habeas court to hold that there was
not a reasonable likelihood that the jury was precluded from giving
consideration and effect to the mitigating evidence. This latter
question sets a substantially higher bar to relief.
145
PRISCILLA RICHMAN OWEN, Circuit Judge, with whom JOLLY and SMITH,
Circuit Judges, join dissenting:
The dissents of Chief Judge Jones and Judge Clement make
salient points. I write to emphasize the standard of review that
must be applied and that, given the state of the law when Nelson’s
conviction and sentence became final in 1994, the Texas court’s
application of United States Supreme Court precedent was not
“objectively unreasonable.”1 The Supreme Court has admonished that
in habeas review “the most important point is that an unreasonable
application of federal law is different from an incorrect
application of federal law.”2 The majority has failed to draw this
distinction. It was not objectively unreasonable to conclude that
Nelson’s mitigating evidence was distinguishable from the mental
retardation and low intelligence at issue in Penry v. Lynaugh
1
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000) (“Stated simply,
a federal habeas court making the ‘unreasonable application’
inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly
established federal law was objectively unreasonable.”); see also
Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 147 (2005) (“Even were we to assume
the ‘“relevant state-court decision applied clearly established
federal law erroneously or incorrectly,”’ there is no basis for
further concluding that the application of our precedents was
‘objectively unreasonable.’”) (quoting Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S.
63, 76 (2003) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 411)) (internal
citations omitted).
2
Williams, 529 U.S. at 410.
146
(Penry I),3 Tennard v. Dretke,4 and Smith v. Texas,5 and was instead
more similar to the transient qualities of youth at issue in
Johnson v. Texas6 and Graham v. Collins.7
I
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Nelson’s sentence
on direct review in 1993, rejecting his argument that the special
issues submitted to the jury failed to permit adequate
consideration of mitigating evidence.8 That judgment became final
when the United States Supreme Court denied review in 1994.9
Nelson then initiated habeas corpus proceedings.
Habeas review in federal courts of state court proceedings is
governed by 28 U.S.C § 2254, and the inquiry before us today is
whether the state proceedings “resulted in a decision that was
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
3
492 U.S. 302 (1989).
4
542 U.S. 274 (2004).
5
543 U.S. 37 (2004).
6
509 U.S. 350 (1993).
7
506 U.S. 461 (1993).
8
Nelson v. State, 864 S.W.2d 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), cert.
denied, 510 U.S. 1215 (1994). The portion of the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals’s opinion addressing Nelson’s mitigating evidence
and the special issues submitted to the jury is unpublished.
9
510 U.S. at 1215.
147
United States.”10 The Supreme Court has held that the phrase
“clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court” means “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this
Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court
decision.”11
At the time the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the
judgment in Nelson’s direct appeal, the Supreme Court’s most recent
pronouncements regarding the Texas special issues submitted in
death penalty cases tried before 1991 were Graham v. Collins,12
which considered a habeas petition, and Johnson v. Texas,13 which
was a direct review of a death sentence. Both decisions
extensively surveyed the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding
mitigating evidence and the Texas special issues under
consideration today. In both Graham and Johnson, the primary
10
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (2000).
11
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000); see also id.
(“[W]hatever would qualify as an old rule under our Teague
jurisprudence will constitute ‘clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”)
(referencing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)).
12
506 U.S. 461 (1993).
13
509 U.S. 350 (1993). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed Nelson’s conviction and sentence on May 26, 1993, before
Johnson v. Texas issued, but the Texas court did not deny rehearing
until October 6, 1993, after Johnson had issued on June 24, 1993.
148
question was whether the special issues allowed juries to give
mitigating effect to a defendant’s youth.14
In Graham and Johnson, the Supreme Court discussed its
decision in Penry I, a habeas proceeding in which Penry presented
evidence indicating that he had a low IQ, had mild to moderate
mental retardation, and had been beaten and received multiple head
injuries at an early age.15 The Court held that the Texas special
issues did not allow the jury to give effect to all of Penry’s
mitigating evidence.16 Three issues were submitted to the jury, and
a “no” answer to any of them would have resulted in a life sentence
rather than the death penalty.17
The first special issue inquired if Penry acted “deliberately
and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the
deceased . . . would result.”18 The Supreme Court held that
assuming the jury “understood ‘deliberately’ to mean something more
than that Penry was guilty of ‘intentionally’ committing murder,
those jurors may still have been unable to give effect to Penry’s
mitigating evidence.”19 Penry’s mental retardation, while relevant
14
Graham, 506 U.S. at 463; Johnson, 509 U.S. at 352.
15
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 307-09 (1989).
16
Id. at 328.
17
Id. at 310, 322-25.
18
Id. at 322.
19
Id.
149
to whether he was capable of acting “deliberately,” also “‘had
relevance to [his] moral culpability.’”20 The Supreme Court
concluded that because the first special issue did not “defin[e]
‘deliberately’ in a way that would clearly direct the jury to
consider Penry’s mitigating evidence as it bears on his personal
culpability,” the Supreme Court could not “be sure that the jury
was able to give effect to the mitigating evidence of Penry’s
mental retardation and history of abuse in answering the first
special issue.”21 The same could be said of Nelson’s borderline
personality disorder.
The second special issue inquired “whether there is a
probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of
violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.”22
In Penry’s case, “one effect of his retardation [was] his inability
20
Id. (quoting Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 185 (1988)
(plurality opinion)).
21
Id. at 323. The Supreme Court further reasoned:
Without such a special instruction, a juror who
believed that Penry’s retardation and background
diminished his moral culpability and made
imposition of the death penalty unwarranted would
be unable to give effect to that conclusion if the
juror also believed that Penry committed the crime
“deliberately.” Thus, we cannot be sure that the
jury’s answer to the first special issue reflected
a “reasoned moral response” to Penry’s mitigating
evidence.
Id.
22
Id.
150
to learn from his mistakes.”23 In Penry I, the Supreme Court
reasoned that Penry’s mental retardation was relevant to the future
dangerousness issue but “only as an aggravating factor because it
suggests a ‘yes’ answer to the question of future dangerousness.”24
The Court held, “The second special issue, therefore, did not
provide a vehicle for the jury to give mitigating effect to Penry’s
evidence of mental retardation and childhood abuse.”25
Subsequently, in Graham the Supreme Court emphasized that the
jury’s answer to the second special issue in Penry’s case could not
give effect to the mitigating aspects of his mental retardation and
abuse because “[a]lthough Penry’s evidence of mental impairment and
childhood abuse indeed had relevance to the ‘future dangerousness’
inquiry, its relevance was aggravating only.”26 The Graham decision
reasoned, “Penry’s evidence compelled an affirmative answer to that
[future dangerousness] inquiry, despite its mitigating
significance.”27 By contrast, in Graham, the defendant’s youth
“quite readily could have supported a negative answer.”28
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Id. at 324.
26
Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 473 (1993).
27
Id. at 475.
28
Id. at 475-76.
151
The Supreme Court’s decision a few months later in Johnson
likewise draws a distinction between the type of evidence at issue
in Penry I and certain other categories of mitigating evidence.29
The Court re-confirmed that the constitutionality of jury
submissions in death penalty cases turns on “‘whether there is a
reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged
instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of
constitutionally relevant evidence.’”30 In making that
determination, the Johnson decision sets forth at least three
important, inter-related principles: (1) even if a juror might
view the evidence as both aggravating and mitigating, the Eighth
Amendment has been satisfied “[a]s long as the mitigating evidence
is within ‘the effective reach of a sentencer,’”31 (2) a state is
not required to allow a jury “to give effect to mitigating evidence
in every conceivable manner in which the evidence might be
relevant,”32 and (3) a state is permitted to structure consideration
of relevant mitigating evidence as long as the jury is allowed to
29
Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 368-70 (1993).
30
Id. at 367 (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380
(1990)).
31
Id. at 368 (quoting Graham, 506 U.S. at 475-76).
32
Id. at 372.
152
give effect to that evidence through at least one vehicle in making
the sentencing decision.33
In Johnson, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument
“that the forward-looking perspective of the future dangerousness
inquiry did not allow the jury to take account of how petitioner’s
youth bore upon his personal culpability for the murder he
committed.”34 The Supreme Court reasoned that the “forward-looking
inquiry is not independent of an assessment of personal
culpability. It is both logical and fair for the jury to make its
determination of a defendant’s future dangerousness by asking the
extent to which youth influenced the defendant’s conduct.”35 The
Court also expressly rejected the related argument that the Texas
special issues did not permit the jury “to make a ‘reasoned moral
response’” to the defendant’s youth because the issue inquired only
about future dangerousness.36 The Court concluded that the use of
the term “continuing threat to society” in the future dangerousness
33
Id. at 370; see also id. at 373 (“To rule in petitioner’s
favor, we would have to require that a jury be instructed in a
manner that leaves it free to depart from the special issues in
every case. This would, of course, remove all power on the part of
the States to structure the consideration of mitigating evidence—a
result we have been consistent in rejecting.”).
34
Id. at 369.
35
Id.; see also Ayers v. Belmontes, 127 S.Ct. 469, 475 (2006)
(citing Johnson, 509 U.S. at 369, for the proposition that “the
‘forward-looking’ future-dangerousness inquiry ‘is not independent
of an assessment of personal culpability.’”).
36
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 370.
153
special issue “afford[ed] the jury room for independent judgment in
reaching its decision,” explaining, “Indeed, we cannot forget that
‘a Texas capital jury deliberating over the Special Issues is aware
of the consequences of its answers, and is likely to weigh
mitigating evidence as it formulates these answers in a manner
similar to that employed by capital juries in “pure balancing”
States.’”37
Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court held in Johnson
that a state may structure consideration of mitigating evidence and
that providing one vehicle through which to give effect to
mitigating evidence satisfies constitutional requirements.38 The
Court explained, “It is true that Texas has structured
consideration of the relevant qualities of petitioner’s youth, but
in so doing, the State still ‘allow[s] the jury to give effect to
[this] mitigating evidence in making the sentencing decision.’”39
A state is not required to provide more than one avenue for giving
effect to mitigating evidence: “Although Texas might have provided
other vehicles for consideration of petitioner’s youth, no
additional instruction beyond that given as to future dangerousness
37
Id. at 370-71 (quoting Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 182
n.12 (1988) (plurality opinion)).
38
Id. at 370.
39
Id. (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 491 (1990)).
154
was required in order for the jury to be able to consider the
mitigating qualities of youth presented to it.”40
In answering the relevant question on direct review of a death
sentence, which is “whether the Texas special issues allowed
adequate consideration” of mitigating evidence,41 the Supreme Court
reiterated in Johnson that “a reviewing court must determine
‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied
the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration
of constitutionally relevant evidence.’”42 The Court found no such
likelihood with regard to a defendant’s youth. “If any jurors
believed that the transient qualities of petitioner’s youth made
him less culpable for the murder, there is no reasonable likelihood
that those jurors would have deemed themselves foreclosed from
considering that in evaluating petitioner’s future dangerousness.”43
II
Against this backdrop, we must determine whether the Texas
court decided Nelson’s case “differently than [the Supreme] Court
has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.”44 As noted,
40
Id.
41
Id. at 367.
42
Id. (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S.370, 380 (1990)).
43
Id. at 370.
44
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000) (construing 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), which provides, “An application for a writ of
habeas corpus . . . shall not be granted . . . unless the
155
this is not a direct appeal; Nelson seeks a writ of habeas corpus.
“[A] federal habeas court making the ‘unreasonable application’
inquiry [under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)] should ask whether the state
court’s application of clearly established federal law was
objectively unreasonable.”45 In light of Penry I, Graham, and
Johnson, it cannot be said that it would be objectively
unreasonable to conclude that Nelson’s mitigating evidence is
distinguishable from Penry’s evidence or is more comparable to
Graham’s and Johnson’s youth. Even if a court might conclude, as
the majority in this case does, that the Texas court incorrectly
applied federal law, that is not a basis for granting habeas
relief. Again, the Supreme Court has held that “the most important
point is that an unreasonable application of federal law is
different from an incorrect application of federal law.”46
Unlike mental retardation or low intelligence, which are
generally static conditions, the evidence regarding Nelson’s
borderline personality disorder is not solely aggravating with
adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a decision that was
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States”); see also id. at 406 (“A state-court decision will
. . . be contrary to this Court’s clearly established precedent if
the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially
indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless
arrives at a result different from our precedent.”).
45
Id. at 409.
46
Id. at 410.
156
regard to his future dangerousness. The majority opinion and Chief
Judge Jones’s dissent describe the expert testimony in some detail,
and I will not duplicate those discussions. The important point is
that although Nelson’s expert witness conceded that those suffering
from borderline personality disorder can be difficult to treat and
there was no guarantee Nelson’s treatment would be successful, the
expert opined that Nelson’s disorder was treatable with medication
and psychotherapy over a period of two to five years. I agree with
Judge Clement’s dissenting opinion that Nelson’s borderline
personality disorder falls somewhere on a continuum between Penry’s
mental retardation and Graham’s youth.47
The established law in Johnson and Graham is that the
attributes of youth place it in a different category than mental
retardation: “The relevance of youth as a mitigating factor
derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are
transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and
recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside.”48 A
jury can give adequate effect to the mitigating aspects of youth in
answering the future dangerousness issue because the “forward-
looking inquiry is not independent of an assessment of personal
47
See Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 475 (1993) (“The jury
was not forbidden to accept the suggestion of Graham’s lawyers that
his brief spasm of criminal activity in May 1981 was properly
viewed, in light of his youth, his background, and his character,
as an aberration that was not likely to be repeated.”).
48
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 368.
157
culpability. It is both logical and fair for the jury to make its
determination of a defendant’s future dangerousness by asking the
extent to which youth influenced the defendant’s conduct.”49 The
future dangerousness issue is adequate even though a jury is free
to conclude that youth did not influence the defendant’s conduct or
that the attributes of youth, such as impetuousness and
recklessness, will not subside as to this defendant. It was not
unreasonable for the Texas court to conclude that the same can be
said of the evidence regarding Nelson’s borderline personality
disorder and the prospects for its treatment. The jury may have
concluded that Nelson’s disorder was treatable, or that it was not,
just as juries may conclude that the attributes of youth are not
transient as to a particular defendant. A court conducting a
direct review of the Texas court’s decision to place the evidence
of Nelson’s borderline personality disorder in the same category as
youth might conclude that the Texas court erred, but it was not
unreasonable for the Texas court to treat Nelson’s evidence as
similar to evidence of youth, given the Supreme Court’s precedent.
The evidence also reflected that Nelson’s mother did not love
him and shunned him. Nelson’s expert testified that his mother’s
conduct likely contributed to or exacerbated Nelson’s borderline
personality disorder. To the extent Nelson’s abusive treatment
from his mother must be considered independently from his mental
49
Id. at 369.
158
condition, it is not unreasonable to conclude that this evidence,
as well as evidence regarding Nelson’s troubled relationships with
his brother and women and his inability to have a relationship with
his child born out of wedlock, is more similar to “Graham’s
evidence of transient upbringing and otherwise nonviolent
character”50 than it is to the harsh, physical abuse inflicted upon
Penry as a child.51 The Texas court did not unreasonably apply the
Supreme Court’s holding in Graham and Johnson that additional
instructions or an additional jury issue are not required simply
because mitigating evidence has some arguable relevance beyond the
special issues. The Supreme Court said in both Graham and Johnson:
[H]olding that a defendant is entitled to special
instructions whenever he can offer mitigating evidence
that has some arguable relevance beyond the special
issues . . . would be to require in all cases that a
fourth “special issue” be put to the jury: “‘Does any
mitigating evidence before you, whether or not relevant
to the above [three] questions, lead you to believe that
the death penalty should not be imposed?’”52
The Court observed that “[t]he first casualty of a holding [that
would require an additional issue whenever evidence had some
relevance beyond the special issues] would be Jurek. The
inevitable consequence of petitioner’s argument is that the Texas
50
Graham, 506 U.S. at 476.
51
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 308-09 (1989).
52
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 372 (quoting Graham, 506 U.S. at 476
(quoting Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 180 n. 10 (1988)
(plurality opinion))).
159
special issues system in almost every case would have to be
supplemented by a further instruction.”53 The Supreme Court held
that as long as “a jury [was] able to consider in some manner all
of a defendant’s relevant mitigating evidence,” a state was not
required to allow a jury “to give effect to mitigating evidence in
every conceivable manner in which the evidence might be relevant.”54
The Texas court was not unreasonable in applying this precedent.
Additionally, during closing arguments, the prosecutor twice
suggested that the jury might conclude that Nelson was not morally
culpable for the murder because of his mother’s or others’
treatment of him and urged the jurors not to do so.55 This
indicates it was unlikely the jury thought that it could not give
effect to evidence of childhood abuse in considering Nelson’s moral
culpability and answering the future dangerousness issue. As was
the case in Ayers v. Belmontes, “It is improbable the jurors
believed that the parties were engaging in an exercise in futility
53
Id. (referencing Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976)).
54
Id. (“In addition to overruling Jurek, accepting petitioner’s
arguments would entail an alteration of the rule of Lockett [v.
Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978)] and Eddings [v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104
(1982)].”).
55
The prosecutor argued, “You are going to hear some Billy,
Billy, Billy, Billy, and before this is all said and done, this
whole grizzly, horrible thing is going to be hung around the neck
of his mother,” and, “We live – like I say, we are going to hang
this, before it is over we are going to hang it around the neck of
some school teacher or some football coach. We are going to hang
this around the neck of everybody but him.”
160
when respondent presented (and both counsel later discussed) his
mitigating evidence in open court.”56 At the very least, the record
indicates that the Texas court would not have been unreasonable in
concluding the jury could give effect to this evidence.
As to evidence of Nelson’s substance abuse, no one questions
that the deliberateness issue provided an adequate vehicle.
III
The Supreme Court’s post-1994 decisions in Penry v. Johnson
(Penry II),57 Tennard v. Dretke,58 and Smith v. Texas59 do not render
the Texas court’s application of established Supreme Court
precedent unreasonable. None of those decisions holds that
additional instructions or another issue is necessary when
mitigating evidence can be given effect in answering either the
“deliberately” special issue or the “future dangerousness” special
issue under pre-1991 Texas law.
In Penry II, Penry had been retried subsequent to Penry I, and
the trial court submitted a third issue, in addition to the
“deliberately” and “future dangerousness” issues.60 The Supreme
Court held that the third issue was subject to two possible
56
127 S. Ct. 469, 476 (2006).
57
532 U.S. 782 (2001).
58
542 U.S. 274 (2004).
59
543 U.S. 37 (2004).
60
Penry II, 532 U.S. at 786.
161
interpretations, and that neither interpretation cured the
infirmity of the first two issues as applied to Penry’s evidence.61
The third issue either had no practical effect62 or essentially
directed the jury to change truthful “yes” answers to the first two
issues to “no.”63
In Penry II, in a “see also” cite, the Court quoted from
Justice O’Connor’s dissent in Johnson, noting in a parenthetical,
“‘[A] sentencer [must] be allowed to give full consideration and
full effect to mitigating circumstances’ (emphasis in original).”64
But in the very next sentence, the Court adhered to Penry I,
requiring only “a ‘vehicle for expressing its “reasoned moral
response” to that evidence in rendering its sentencing decision.’”65
The reference to “full effect” and “full consideration” cannot be
taken as a retraction of one of Johnson’s core holdings: “Although
Texas might have provided other vehicles for consideration of
petitioner’s [mitigating evidence], no additional instruction
beyond that given as to future dangerousness was required in order
61
Id. at 798.
62
Id.
63
Id. at 799.
64
Id. at 797 (quoting Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 381
(1993) (O’Connor, J., dissenting)).
65
Id. (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 328 (1989))
(emphasis added).
162
for the jury to be able to consider the mitigating qualities of
youth presented to it.”66
In Tennard, the Supreme Court considered in some detail what
constitutes mitigating evidence, explaining that the threshold was
a low one in deciding if there was a mitigating aspect.67 The Court
rejected this circuit’s “uniquely severe permanent handicap” and
“nexus” tests and held “that reasonable jurists would find
debatable or wrong” the state court’s disposition of “Tennard’s
low-IQ-based Penry claim.”68
In Smith, the Supreme Court again quoted the passage from
Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion in Johnson that said a
sentencer must be allowed to give “‘full effect to mitigating
circumstances.’”69 At issue was a nullification question, similar
but not identical to the one submitted in Penry II,70 that
“‘essentially instructed [the jury] to return a false answer to a
special issue in order to avoid a death sentence.’”71 The Supreme
66
Johnson, 509 U.S. at 370.
67
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282-89 (2004).
68
Id. at 289.
69
Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 46 (2004) (quoting Johnson, 509
U.S. at 381 (O’Connor, J., dissenting)).
70
Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 797-98 (2001).
71
Smith, 543 U.S. at 48 (quoting Penry II, 532 U.S. at 801).
163
Court explained in Smith the import of its holdings in Tennard and
Penry II:
Rather, we held that the jury must be given an effective
vehicle with which to weigh mitigating evidence so long
as the defendant has met a “low threshold for relevance,”
which is satisfied by “‘evidence which tends logically to
prove or disprove some fact or circumstance which a
fact-finder could reasonably deem to have mitigating
value.’”72
The Court held in Smith that “the burden of proof on the State was
tied by law to findings of deliberateness and future dangerousness
that had little, if anything, to do with the mitigation evidence
petitioner presented.”73 Smith had a low IQ and was placed in
special education classes, indicating low intelligence, a condition
that was not transient or treatable.74 Similarly, in Tennard, the
defendant had an IQ of 67, indicating low intelligence.75 No
mitigating effect could be given to low intelligence through a
jury’s answer to the future dangerousness issue.76 It is not
unreasonable to conclude that Nelson’s borderline personality
disorder and potential treatment for that condition is
72
Id. at 44 (quoting Tennard, 542 U.S. at 284-85 (quoting McKoy
v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 440 (1990))) (internal quotation
omitted).
73
Id. at 48.
74
Id. at 41.
75
542 U.S. at 277.
76
Id. at 288-89.
164
distinguishable from Smith’s and Tennard’s mitigating circumstances
in this regard.
Neither Tennard nor Smith purports to overrule the holding in
Johnson that a state is only required to provide one avenue for
giving effect to mitigating evidence, not multiple vehicles.77 A
“no” answer to the future dangerousness issue based on Nelson’s
mitigating evidence would have given full effect to that evidence.
To paraphrase Johnson, if any jurors believed that Nelson’s
borderline personality disorder was transient because it was
treatable and his condition made him less culpable for murder,
there is no reasonable likelihood that those jurors would have
deemed themselves foreclosed from considering that in evaluating
Nelson’s future dangerousness.78
* * * * *
The Texas court was not objectively unreasonable in applying
the Supreme Court’s established precedent to the facts presented.
It was not objectively unreasonable to conclude that evidence of
Nelson’s borderline personality disorder and the prospects for its
treatment was less similar to mental retardation79 and low
77
See Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 370 (1993).
78
See id.
79
See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 322 (1989).
165
intelligence80 and more similar to the transient qualities of
youth.81 Accordingly, I dissent.
80
See Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 41 (2004); see also Tennard,
542 U.S. at 277.
81
See Johnson, 509 U.S. at 368; see also Graham v.Collins, 506
U.S. 461, 463-64 (1993).
166